Philosophy – Page 4

Thomas Hobbes on Accidental and Essential In “Leviathan”

In his book “Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes prefaces his discussion of politics and the “social contract” with a discussion “Of Man”. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm) (My references to “Leviathan” are to the Penguin Classics version, 1987, ISBN 0-14-043195-0 http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&isbn=0140431950&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t )

Hobbes recognizes that one must study the nature of man before discussing how men should be organized into society and what sort of political system they should adapt. He also recognizes that the nature of the human mind, and how it acquires knowledge, is key to understanding the nature of man.

In historical context, Hobbes lived in a time when some of the scientific assertions of Aristotle, which had been re-incorporated into Western thinking by Thomas Aquinas, were being questioned.

Galileo Galilei had presented evidence that tended to overthrow the Ptolemaic system, which had described the Earth as the center of the universe. This idea had become official doctrine of the Church with its adoption of Aristotle, through Thomas Aquinas, at the beginning of the Renaissance.

Hobbes wrote against this backdrop, in which all of Aristotle’s science, especially his cosmology, was starting to be questioned.

Despite his declared rejection of Aristotle, Hobbes didn’t go far enough in questioning the philosopher when it came to the distinction between “essential” and “accidental” properties of a thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28philosophy%29)

Although Hobbes was right to reject the Platonic/Aristotelian view of “essences”, his embrace of the idea of “accidental” features in things that are not man-made lead him to believe that definitions are based on mere “accidental” features.

An alternative to both Hobbes and the “realists” (Plato and Aristotle) holds that essential features are characteristics perceived by a particular type of mind, the human mind, to serve human purposes -ultimately, man’s life.

There is a long-standing debate in the history of philosophy about where the essential feature(s) that comprise a concept come from:

“The problem of universals is the problem of the correspondence of our intellectual concepts to things existing outside our intellect. Whereas external objects are determinate individuals, formally exclusive of all multiplicity, our concepts or mental representations offer us the realities independent of all particular determination; they are abstract and universal. The question, therefore, is to discover to what extent the concepts of the mind correspond to the things they represent; how the flower we conceive represents the flower existing in nature; in a word whether our ideas are faithful and have an objective reality.” (E.C. Moore, American Pragmatism: Peirce, James, and Dewey. New York: Columbia University Press (1961), quoting DeWulf, M. Catholic Encyclopedia, XI, “Nominalism, Realism and Conceptualism”(1909).)

“Since man’s knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of man’s knowledge depends on the validity of concepts. But concepts are abstractions or universals, and everything that man perceives is particular, concrete. What is the relationship between abstractions and concretes? To what precisely do concepts refer in reality? Do they refer to something real, something that exists -or are they merely inventions of man’s mind, arbitrary constructs or loose approximations that cannot claim to represent knowledge?…To exemplify the issue as it is usually presented: When we refer to three persons as ‘men’, what do we designate by that term? The three persons are three individuals who differ in every particular respect and may not possess a single identical characteristic…If you list all their particular characteristics, you will not find one representing ‘manness.’ Where is the ‘manness’ in men? What, in reality, corresponds to the concept ‘man’ in our mind?” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., “Forward to the First Edition”. New York:Meridian (1990).)

Plato said that “essences” exist in pure form in some other realm, and that the world we see around us is just a vague, shadowy approximation of that real world of forms. This is probably what was meant by Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

Plato said we are all like people who are chained and forced to face the wall of a cave with a fire behind us. We can see the shadows of people and other things as they pass by, but we cannot see the actual things. This is a metaphor for the idea that human senses do not perceive actual entities or things, just the shadows of things that actually exist. What actually exists are the “forms”, which are in some other realm. Human beings are merely perceiving the shadows of those forms. Those “forms” are what we mean when we speak of the essence of a thing. The “manness” that we perceive in men actually exists in some pure form in another realm, and the individual men that we perceive are just shadowy approximations of the “Platonic form” of man.

Plato’s student, Aristotle was somewhat more “this worldly” than his teacher. Aristotle rejected the idea that “forms” exist in some other realm. Instead, some scholars interpret Aristotle as saying that the “form” or “essence” of a thing exists within each concrete instance. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/arist.htm The practical result of this would be that for Aristotle, studying concrete particular things is important to understanding them, since that “essence” of the thing exists somewhere within it, whereas Plato said the “essence” isn’t in the thing –the thing is just a shadow of that “pure essence”. Plato’s view of knowledge would tend to suggest that one gains knowledge by learning about some other world, other than the one you perceive, while Aristotle at least believed that you should study the things you can actually see and perceive in order to learn about their essence.

Starting in the late Middle Ages, the ideas of Aristotle were rediscovered by Western Scholars like Thomas Aquinas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas By the time of the Renaissance, much of Aristotle had been incorporated into Church doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance The ideas of Aristotle and Aquinas became part of the “scholastic” tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

In the 1600’s, Hobbes, and other thinkers and scientists, began to reject the ideas of the “Schoolmen” (the Scholastics).

“Lastly, the Metaphysiques, Ethiques, and Politiques of Aristotle, the frivolous Distinctions, barbarous Terms, and obscure Language of the Schoolmen, taught in the Universities, (which have been all erected and regulated by the Popes Authority,) serve them to keep these Errors from being detected, and to make men mistake the Ignis Fatuus of Vain Philosophy, for the Light of the Gospell.” (Leviathan, Pg. 708)

Along with the doctrines of Aristotle, Hobbes also denounced, amongst others, the idea of Papal infallibility (“…that the Pope In His Publique Capacity Cannot Erre…” Leviathan, Pg. 706) and transubstantiation (“…they assure the same, by the Power they ascribe to every Priest, of making Christ; and by the Power of ordaining Pennance; and of Remitting, and Retaining of sins.” Leviathan, Pg. 708)

Hobbes likely regarded Plato’s Allegory of the Cave as an “abuse of speech”:

“Secondly, when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other sense than that they are ordained for; and thereby deceive others.” (Leviathan, Pg. 102)

The allegory of the cave could be considered a “metaphorical” use of words, aimed at deceiving others into doubting the evidence of their senses.

If Hobbes rejected the essentialism of Plato and Aristotle, what did he believe we were referring to when we speak of an essential, defining characteristic of a thing?

For instance, I read an article about a chimpanzee that lost all of his hair in a zoo because of alopecia –a disease. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322472/Guru-chimp-suffering-alopecia-looks-human-star-zoo-attraction.html)

This is what Hobbes says the schoolmen would say:

“From these Metaphysiques [the philosphy of Aristotle], which are mingled with the Scripture to make Schoole Divinity, wee are told, there be in the world certaine Essences separated from Bodies, which they call Abstract Essences, and Substantiall Formes…” (Leviathan, Pg. 689)

Aristotle tried to draw a distinction between “essential” and “accidental” properties of a thing to account for something like a chimpanzee without hair, and why it is still a chimpanzee. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28philosophy%29)

The fact that most chimpanzees have hair on their bodies must be an “accidental feature” of a chimpanzee. Something else must be “essential”.

Although he is not always clear on this point, I believe Hobbes thought all definitions ultimately rest on “accidental qualities”:

“Of Names, some are Proper, and singular to one onely thing; as Peter, John, This Man, This Tree: and some are Common to many things; as Man, Horse, Tree; every of which though but one Name, is nevertheless the name of divers particular things; in respect of all which together, it is called an Universall; there being nothing in the world Universall but Names; for the things named, are every one of them Individual and Singular.

One Universall name is imposed on many things, for their similitude in some quality, or other accident: And whereas a Proper Name bringeth to mind one thing onely; Universals recall any one of those many. ” (See Leviathan, pg. 103)

“Secondly, it may enter into account, or be considered, for some accident or quality, which we conceive to be in it; as for Being Moved, for Being So Long, for Being Hot, &c; and then, of the name of the thing it selfe, by a little change or wresting, wee make a name for that accident, which we consider; and for Living put into account Life; for Moved, Motion; for Hot, Heat; for Long, Length, and the like. And all such Names, are the names of the accidents and properties, by which one Matter, and Body is distinguished from another. These are called Names Abstract; Because Severed (not from Matter, but) from the account of Matter.” (See Leviathan, Pg. 107.)

In the above passages, Hobbes says there are “accidental qualities” that make up “matter” and “body”. Hobbes initially did seem to suggest that one “…Universal name is imposed on many things, for their similitude in some quality, or other accident…” (Leviathan, Pg. 103)

This could be interpreted as meaning he made a distinction between “similarity” and “accident”. So, for instance, the chimpanzee with alopecia has no hair as a result of an “accident” (a disease). However, given what he then gives as examples of “accident” (“living”, “moved”, “hot”, “long”, etc), the logical implication is that all characteristics of any given entity would ultimately be considered “accidental”.

Additionally, for Hobbes, a “body without us” is what is commonly called an “object”. “Objects” are the things we perceive with our senses:

“Concerning the Thoughts of man, I will consider them first Singly, and afterwards in Trayne, or dependance upon one another. Singly, they are every one a Representation or Apparence, of some quality, or other Accident of a body without us; which is commonly called an Object. Which Object worketh on the Eyes, Eares, and other parts of mans body; and by diversity of working, produceth diversity of Apparences.” (Leviathan, Pg. 85)

Every “object” that we perceive, according to Hobbes, is a “Representation” of “Apparence” of “some quality, or other Accident of a body [an object] without us; which is commonly called an Object.”

The logic of Hobbes’ view of knowledge is to say that everything about a particular entity that we call “matter” or “body” is just an accidental feature. Therefore, all of our concepts must be based on “accidental features”. There is no “essence”, as Plato or Aristotle speaks of them.

One of the strengths of Hobbes is his commitment to good definitions:

“Seeing then that Truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our affirmations, a man that seeketh precise Truth, had need to remember what every name he uses stands for; and to place it accordingly; or els he will find himselfe entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twiggs; the more he struggles, the more belimed. And therefore in Geometry, (which is the onely Science that it hath pleased God hitherto to bestow on mankind,) men begin at settling the significations of their words; which settling of significations, they call Definitions; and place them in the beginning of their reckoning.

By this it appears how necessary it is for any man that aspires to true Knowledge, to examine the Definitions of former Authors; and either to correct them, where they are negligently set down; or to make them himselfe. For the errours of Definitions multiply themselves, according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see, but cannot avoyd, without reckoning anew from the beginning; in which lyes the foundation of their errours. From whence it happens, that they which trust to books, do as they that cast up many little summs into a greater, without considering whether those little summes were rightly cast up or not; and at last finding the errour visible, and not mistrusting their first grounds, know not which way to cleere themselves; but spend time in fluttering over their bookes; as birds that entring by the chimney, and finding themselves inclosed in a chamber, flitter at the false light of a glasse window, for want of wit to consider which way they came in. So that in the right Definition of Names, lyes the first use of Speech; which is the Acquisition of Science: And in wrong, or no Definitions’ lyes the first abuse; from which proceed all false and senslesse Tenets; which make those men that take their instruction from the authority of books, and not from their own meditation, to be as much below the condition of ignorant men, as men endued with true Science are above it. For between true Science, and erroneous Doctrines, Ignorance is in the middle. Naturall sense and imagination, are not subject to absurdity. Nature it selfe cannot erre: and as men abound in copiousnesse of language; so they become more wise, or more mad than ordinary. Nor is it possible without Letters for any man to become either excellently wise, or (unless his memory be hurt by disease, or ill constitution of organs) excellently foolish. For words are wise mens counters, they do but reckon by them: but they are the mony of fooles, that value them by the authority of an Aristotle, a Cicero, or a Thomas, or any other Doctor whatsoever, if but a man.” (Leviathan, Pg. 105-106)

Here, Hobbes says that all authority must be rejected (specifically the authority of “…Aristotle…Cicero…[and]…Thomas [Aquinas]…” He says that one must “…examine the Definitions of former Authors…” to see if they are right or wrong. Hobbes says that failure to do so will cause one to “…find himselfe entangled in words…”

But, Hobbes doesn’t always follow his own advice on definitions. Hobbes uses the term “accidental” without thinking about what that means -what its definition is. The definition of “accident” is:

“a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury.”
“an event that is not planned or intended: an event that occurs by chance” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident)

An “accident” means something that was not planned or intended. With respect to “the metaphysical”, i.e., all aspects of reality that don’t involve human choice, the concepts of “planned” or “intended” do not apply. Only human beings, and, arguably, certain other types of living organisms, are capable of “planning” or “intent”. These concepts pertain to entities that possess a mind like human beings.

Similarly, the concept of “chance” means that an event occurs about which one does not have sufficient information to know for certain what the outcome will be. For instance, if I flip a coin, whether it will come up heads or tails is a question of “chance”, and I can speak of the probability that it will come up heads or tails.

If I had enough data about the original position of the coin prior to being tossed, the angle(s) and speeds of all the forces that worked on it when it was tossed, the wind and weather factors involved, etc., then I could know for certain whether the coin toss would end up heads or tails. It would no longer be a matter of “chance” because I have sufficient knowledge to know all the factors that are playing into its eventual resting state.

All inanimate things act in accordance with their nature, and the nature of other things that they interact with, and they absolutely must act that way. “Chance” is just a way of saying that a human being doesn’t have enough knowledge about the nature of certain inanimate things to know what the outcome will be.

For example, the fact that the Earth and the other planets came to revolve around the sun the way they do, and at the orbits they occupy, had to occur that way because of the nature of the Sun and the other planets. (Their masses, their speeds, their composition, etc.) The element of “chance” comes into play because human beings do not know all of the factors that led to the Earth orbiting the sun in the way it does. “Chance” is just a reflection of some human being’s level of knowledge on a subject.

As far as we know, only human beings make choices. Since only human beings can make plans or intend to bring about some event or goal, only human beings are capable of having their plans or intentions fail due to some ignorance, negligence, or irrationality on their part. Only human beings can have “accidents”, because only human beings can be mistaken.

This means that when it comes to reality, apart from those aspects that don’t involve human choice, nothing is “accidental”, because the concept does not apply. It’s like asking: what is the sound of one hand clapping? Or: what is outside the universe? Since clapping, by definition, is the striking together of two hands, it is a nonsense sentence. If the universe is all that exists, then you cannot speak of anything “outside” it, because anything that exists is part of the universe. “Outside” is also a relational concept, implying that something that exists is not within something else, so there is no “outside” the universe. (Arguably, there is no “inside” the universe, either.) Similarly, speaking of “accidental” aspects or features of reality, that don’t involve human choice, is a nonsense statement.

Going back to the chimpanzee with alopecia, the fact that he lost all of his hair is not an “accident”, nor is the fact that other chimps have their hair an “accident”. Chimps that don’t have alopecia have their hair because of their nature as a living organism, plus the nature of the rest of reality that they interact with. It isn’t an “accident” that chimps have hair. It had to be that way, because reality is what it is. There is no god making choices about how reality is going to be. Reality simply is. Only human beings make choices, that we know of, and only human beings can make plans. Human beings, not reality, are capable of having “accidents” -of making mistakes. If a chimp looses his hair for some reason that doesn’t involve human choice, it had to be that way because of the nature of certain diseases and the nature of the chimp’s body in reaction to those diseases.

What is the consequence of believing, as Hobbes appears to, that all features or characteristics of “matter” and “body” are “accidental”? He would have to believe that all concepts that human being hold must be, in some sense, “accidental”. Concepts for Hobbes are not going to be fully real to him. Hobbes is what is known today as a “nominalist”:

“Denying that concepts have an objective basis in the facts of reality, nominalists declare that the source of concepts is a subjective human decision: men arbitrarily select certain characteristics to serve as the basis (the “essentials”) for a classification; thereafter, they agree to apply the same term to any concretes that happen to exhibit these “essentials,” no matter how diverse these concretes are in other respects. On this view, the concept (the term) means only those characteristics initially decreed to be ‘essential’. The other characteristics of the subsumed concretes bear no necessary connection to the ‘essential’ characteristics, and are excluded from the concepts meaning.

Observe that, while condemning Plato’s mystic view of a concept’s meaning, the nominalists embrace the same view in a skeptic version. Condemning the essence-accident dichotomy as implicitly arbitrary, they institute an explicitly arbitrary equivalent. Condemning Plato’s ‘intuitive’ selection of essences as a disguised subjectivism, they spurn the disguise and adopt subjectivism as their official theory…Condemning Plato’s supernaturally determined essences, they declare that essences are socially determined, thus transferring to the province of human whim what had once been the prerogative of Plato’s divine realm. The nominalists’ ‘advance’ over Plato consisted of secularizing his theory.”(Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy.” In: Rand, A. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed.” New York:Meridian (1990).)

Hobbes is correct that all definitions of concepts rest on human choices -that all essences are based on human choice. He is mistaken in believing that certain aspects or characteristics of the things we perceive, given certain contexts of knowledge, should be considered no more essential than all of their other features, though. This is because the human mind has a certain nature, and it must organize the material it perceives in accordance with that nature if it is going to function effectively. Since human thought serves human life, certain characteristics of the entities we perceive are more fundamental than others, because we adopt certain principles of “fundamentality” that serve our nature as living beings with a certain nature of mind.

“Now observe, on the above example, the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.

Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others.” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 5, “Definitions”. New York:Meridian (1990).)

For instance, in the case of the chimpanzee, we know that it is a living organism that must obtain the fuel necessary for its continued existence. It must gather food and other resources. It will seek out females to reproduce with because all living organisms are capable of reproducing themselves, and, with the possible exception of humans, are driven by inexorable mating cycles to do so. Its internal organs are all aimed at sustaining itself. It reacts to its environment and attempts to adapt itself to that environment in a manner that will allow for its continued existence, so it behaves in certain ways. It possesses a consciousness that is, perhaps different from human beings, but a consciousness, nonetheless.

Take away its hair, and the chimpanzee is still a living organism, albeit one that is in a diseased state, so it might not be quite as successful at living. To the extent that human beings interact with a chimpanzee without hair, they will still do so in largely the same way. Hair, as far as human beings are concerned, is not an essential feature of the chimp. But, this is only as far as a human being are concerned. Outside of the way human beings organize certain entities that they perceive in their minds in order to serve human purposes, every entity is unique. No two chimpanzees are the same. The concept of “similarity” serves human needs.

What are some of the “principles of ‘fundamentality’” that human beings adopt in order to serve their purposes? Probably the most important one is the principle of causality. We try to find aspects of reality that we can use to bring about certain results. This is important because reason is our means of survival. So, for instance, we find that certain types of molds kill bacteria. A certain type of mold is the “cause” of bacteria death. We then extract the substance from that mold that leads to the death of certain types of bacteria, and make antibiotics. This means that when we form concepts we look for characteristics that are the “cause” of other characteristics of the thing. The more characteristics of a thing that a particular characteristic(s) causes, the more likely it is to be considered “fundamental”.

This isn’t always an easy task, since we may have incomplete knowledge, but this is what we are doing when we try to find “essential features” of a thing -and finding those essential features is necessary for successful living by human beings. The fact that the concept of essential features is necessary for living life means that there is a “right” and a “wrong” -that some ideas held by human beings are “true” and others are “false”. If one person believes that penicillin kills bacteria while another believes that voodoo incantations will cure disease, then the former is right and the later is wrong. If you want to live, then it’s not all just a matter of arbitrary definitions based on “accidental qualities”.

In the case of a chimpanzee, the fact that he has hair is not considered a fundamental feature. Other mammals have hair, and it doesn’t explain most of the chimp’s behavior patterns or the overall structure of his body. He also is still capable of reproduction with other chimpanzees, which is a strong indicator that an animal is the same species as another animal -although not always a definite indicator. (Wolves and coyotes can interbreed.) Why is interbreeding such a strong indicator? Because two animals breeding and giving rise to offspring tends to be very important to human beings in terms of farming. Agriculture, at least since the Neolithic period, is important to mankind because livestock for food and other purposes is important to human survival.

Essential features are neither “out there”, as Plato/Aristotle would say, nor “arbitrary creations”, as Hobbes would have to say. They are aspects of realty perceived and organized by a certain type of organism, a human being, who needs them to serve a certain purpose, which is living.

The legacy of Hobbes and of the Enlightenment is one in which tradition and authority is questioned. Hobbes just didn’t go far enough when he accepted, without criticism, the idea of “accidental qualities”, because the concept of “accident” does not apply to those aspects of reality that exist apart from human choice. (The “metaphysical”.) Only the metaphysical should be accepted, while all human choices and institutions should be judged, and, if necessary, reformed, if one wants to live.

A Review of “Altruism as Appeasement” by Ayn Rand

In 1962, Ayn Rand asked a student at MIT why so many of “…today’s young intellectuals were becoming ‘liberals’…” (pg. 32) A few weeks later, the MIT student wrote Miss Rand a letter, outlining his thinking on the subject. Miss Rand wrote “Altruism as Appeasement”, which expands on the response she got from this MIT student. This essay can be found in The Voice of Reason. (My page citations below are to the 1989 Meridian version, ISBN number: 0-452-01046-2)

In his letter, the student told Miss Rand that “The majority of college students…do not choose to think; they accept the status quo, conform to the prescribed code of values, and evade the responsibility of independent thought…’In adopting this attitude, they are encouraged by teachers who inspire imitation, rather than creation.’” (Pg. 32)

However, there is another group who are “…not willing to renounce their rational faculty.” Miss Rand then quotes at length from the MIT student’s letter: “‘They are the intellectuals -and they are the outsiders….They are teased and rejected by their schoolmates. An immense amount of faith in oneself and a rational philosophical basis are required to set oneself against all that society has ever taught…The man who preaches individual integrity, pride, and self-esteem is today virtually nonexistent. Far more common is the man who, driven by the young adult’s driving need for acceptance, has compromised. And here is the key -[the result of] the compromise is the liberal.’”

What is the psychological result? Most “liberal intellectuals” are driven by a strong guilt complex, because a person who sets himself against society in favor of rationality will feel guilt due to his rejection by the mediocrities around him. The “liberal” “…’loudly proclaims the brotherhood of all men. He seeks to serve his escapist brothers by guaranteeing them their desire for social security…’” (Pg. 33) “Liberals” are driven to atone for their false guilt, and they do so by working for “…’their welfare…’” (Pg. 33)

Miss Rand agreed with the MIT student regarding the psychological process he had identified, however: “…the situation he [the MIT student] describes is not new; it is as old as altruism; nor is it confined to ‘liberals’.” She says that this is the “…story of men who spend their lives apologizing for their own intelligence.” (Pg. 33)

Miss Rand then describes how this psychological process works out in the mind of the average college student. In an effort to avoid a massive quantity of quotations, I will summarize Miss Rand’s description of this process as best I can, as well as discuss some of my own observations that have led me to believe that Miss Rand is describing a psychological process that occurs very often in the mind of persons that usually self-identify as “liberals” or, more often today, as “progressives”.

When I originally read this essay in the mid-nineties, I was 19 or 20 years old. I hadn’t had enough experience to know if Miss Rand was right, so I just mentally “shelved” the issue. 20 years later, I’ve dealt with and seen enough people, and I’ve spent enough time thinking about their behavior, that I consider Miss Rand’s theory in “Altruism as Appeasement” to be a highly probable explanation for many people that are college educated, and self-describe as “liberals”, “progressives” or “social democrats”.

Miss Rand observes that bright children have a sense of being trapped in a “nightmare universe” when they are growing up. Growing up mostly in the Bible Belt and going to public school, I can relate to this description of childhood. In the South, large numbers of people will tell you that you are going to hell for some inherent moral vice called “original sin”, unless you repent your non-existent guilt to god. This could certainly be a frightening prospect for a child. In my own case, I started questioning the existence of god around age 13, and my mother must have sensed that because I was made to go to church despite the fact that I wasn’t particularly interested. Fortunately, the church that I was sent to was fairly “liberal”, and didn’t take the bible literally, so it could have been worse, I suppose.

Public schools, especially high school, were filled with their share of bullies -by which I mean children that would engage in low-level initiations of physical force, especially against anyone who didn’t seem to fit in, or that their emotions told them deserved such treatment. (By low-level initiations of physical force, I mean things like handing out quadriceps contusions —a “deadleg”- or being spit on, or having your books knocked out of your hands in the hall, etc.) Although in my case, by the 11th grade, most of the kids that were initiating physical force against others had either been removed from the school to a special “alternative school”, or were already in jail. Additionally, Plano Independent Schools contain a large number of children with parents that actually care about academic achievement and personal success, so my overall public school experience wasn’t what I’d call a “nightmare”. I suspect that an inner-city public school would be four years of complete hell all the way through, and make my experience look like I was living in Galt’s Gulch (a utopia).

I discovered Ayn Rand’s philosophy when I was about 15, and I did note that most people were hostile to Miss Rand’s ideas, if they knew about them at all. I did have a couple of teachers that seemed sympathetic towards her ideas, but that was rare. So, I can relate when Miss Rand says that the intelligent teenager wants to “…understand things and issues, big issues, about which no one else seems to care.” (Pg. 33)

Miss Rand goes on to say that most intelligent teenagers start college with the hope that it will be better, but their first year is too often a “psychological killer”(Pg. 33). He went to college hoping to find answers and meaning, and some companions to share his interest in ideas. She notes that he may find a handful of teachers that live up to his hopes, but “…as to intellectual companionship, he finds the same gang he had met in kindergarten, in playgrounds, and in vacant lots: a leering, screeching, aggressively mindless gang playing the same games, with latinized jargon replacing the mud pies and the baseball bats.” (Pg. 34)

I found Rand’s description of college to be fairly accurate at the University of Texas at Austin, which is easily the most left-wing school in Texas. One English professor was particularly terrible. He interpreted everything we read through the lens of “multiculturalism” and “feminism”. He told the class that Thomas Jefferson was a racist and a hypocrite when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. I raised my hand and disagreed with him. I told him that the Declaration of Independence may not have been consistently applied at the founding, but it formed the intellectual basis on which the nation eventually moved towards abolishing slavery. His response was that the civil war was the reason the slaves were freed. I disagreed, and said that slavery would have been abolished eventually anyway. In that professor’s mind, ideas had nothing to do with it. The use of physical force was all that mattered. It makes me wonder why he bothered to be a professor at all, if he thought ideas were so futile.

Going back to Miss Rand’s essay, how do too many intelligent college students deal with the intellectual wasteland that is college? “There are many wrong directions he can make at this crossroads, but the deadliest -psychologically, intellectually, and morally- is the attempt to join the gang at the price of selling his soul to uninterested buyers. It is an attempt to apologize for his intellectual concerns…by professing that his thinking is dedicated to some social-altruistic goal.” (Pg. 34) She notes that this is rarely a conscious decision on his or her part. It is done gradually and subconsciously and by semiconscious rationalization. She also notes that altruism “…offers an arsenal of such rationalizations: if an unformed adolescent can tell himself that his…subservience is unselfishness…he is hooked. By the time he is old enough to know better, the erosion of his self-esteem is such that he dares not face or reexamine the issue.” (pg. 34)

What is the psychology of an intelligent person who goes to college and professes that he is using his mind to serve others? Such a man or woman has some “…degree of social metaphysics [secondhandedness]…” (Pg. 34) The concept of “social metaphysics” requires some explanation, which Rand does supply: “Basically, a social metaphysician is motivated by the desire to escape the responsibility of independent thought, and he surrenders the mind he is afraid to use, preferring to follow the judgments of others.” (Pg. 34)

If you’ve read Miss Rand’s book The Fountainhead, the character Peter Keating is the ultimate “second-hander” or “social metaphysician”. If you haven’t read that novel, it could be thought of as the “go along to get along” type of personality. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/go_along_to_get_along) It does not mean never compromising on non-fundamental or trivial matters. So, for instance if you are going to dinner with a friend, and they prefer Italian food and you want Chinese, and you compromise by going to an Italian restaurant, with the understanding that next time you will pick the restaurant, that isn’t social metaphysics. That is simply recognizing that there are a range of food preferences that vary by person, you can only go to one place at a time, and that friendship is about shared values, which means showing an interest in what your friends are interested in.

The social metaphysician regards society -others- as the standard of reality. The social order as it happens to exist is accepted by him, or her, and then he or she operates within it. A social metaphysician can be quite successful at operating within that social order, but she never questions it. This is why Rand called them social metaphysicians.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the most fundamental aspects of the nature of reality. Metaphysics are the principles that must be understood before one can study particular sciences like physics or biology. For instance, in Miss Rand’s philosophy, she accepts the existence of an external universe as the given. The entities that make up the universe have a particular nature and those entities act in accordance with that nature. According to Miss Rand’s system of metaphysics, an entity is what it is regardless of anyone’s desires or wishes to the contrary. If one is a social metaphysician, then the metaphysical, i.e., reality, is less important than the “man-made”. The man-made includes all of our social institutions and customs. Unlike reality, the man-made depends on human choice, and could be other than it is. For instance, America is a Republic and not a Monarchy because people chose to make it that way. It’s continued existence as a Republic depends on human choice. The social metaphysician simply accepts these man-made customs as the given, and rarely questions them. In fact, a social metaphysician has so internalized this way of thinking, that anyone who questions generally accepted social institutions will make her feel uneasy.

Social metaphysicians who are less intelligent, and didn’t go to college, are the “good old boys” and “rednecks” that one might see in a small, rural town. The social metaphysician is also quite common in inner cities, but I don’t know what the polite word to describe them would be. For lack of a polite term, I will call them “black rednecks”. A “black redneck” from a large inner city like Chicago or New York will be highly critical of anyone from his neighborhood who studies hard and tries to better his economic standing. He will accuse high-achievers in his race of “acting white”. This is a perfect example of the social metaphysician attitude. The “black redneck” believes there are certain social customs and institutions that are not to be questioned -unfortunately those social customs and institutions in minority communities include the belief that gaining knowledge and education is not in accordance with being of African descent. Anyone from his racial group who defies those customs is therefore a traitor in the social metaphysician’s eyes. There was once a great episode of a show that I didn’t typically watch that covered this topic, “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” where the “nerdy” character “Carlton” is accused of being a race-traitor.

Another great essay by Rand describing basically the same mentality as this type of social metaphysician, the “anti-conceptual tribalist”, can be found in Philosophy: Who Needs It called: The Missing Link.

The intelligent teenager who goes to college and has the “social metaphysician” mindset will not become a redneck, though. He (or she) will become a “liberal” -which is the “educated” equivalent. To a social metaphysician college student, it seems like all of his professors and peers accept the idea that the individual must sacrifice himself to the “common good”. This means that in the social metaphysician’s eyes, the idea of self-sacrifice is one of the social institutions and custom of college. It is the social order that is not to be questioned.

The psychology of social metaphysics doesn’t entirely explain the “liberal mindset”, however. The college “liberal” is also engaged in “intellectual appeasement”: “…an intellectual appeaser surrenders morality, the realm of values, in order to be permitted to use his mind. The degree of self-abasement is greater [than the social metaphysician]; the implicit view of the mind -as functioning by permission of the mindless -is unspeakable. (Nor does the appeaser often care to speak of it.)” (Pg. 34)

“There are as many variants of the consequences [of being an intellectual appeaser] as there are men who commit this particular type of moral treason. But certain scars of psychological deformity can be observed in most of them as their common symptoms.” (Pg. 35) Rand then describes some common consequences of being an intellectual appeaser.

First, the intellectual appeaser tends to hate mankind in general, and to regard them as “…evil by nature, he complains about their congenital stupidity…” (pg. 35) I regard the “people are stupid” attitude as the hallmark of the “liberal” or “progressive”. “Liberal” politicians like Michael Bloomberg pass laws to restrict the size of sugary drinks because he thinks people are too stupid to regulate their own caloric intake. The “liberal”, intellectual appeaser view of “…the people at large is a nightmare image -the image of a mindless brute endowed with some inexplicably omnipotent power -and he lives in terror of that image…emotionally, he keeps feeling the brute’s presence behind every corner…The brute is the frozen embodiment of mankind as projected by the emotions of an adolescent appeaser.” (Pg. 35)

In my own experience, the belief that the majority of people are brutish is why most “liberals” are for gun control. They believe that most human beings are seething cauldrons of rage who will snap at the slightest provocation -that they are brutes. I saw this when Texas legalized concealed carry with a license in the mid-1990’s. “Liberals” claimed that it would lead to the “wild west” -with people shooting each other over trivial matters like parking spots. This is not to say that murder never happens, but the world today is arguably less violent than it has ever been. (“Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk )

Second, a “…corollary symptom, in most intellectual appeasers, is the ‘elite’ premise -the dogmatic, unshakable belief that ‘the masses don’t think,’ that men are impervious to reason, that thinking is the exclusive prerogative of a small, ‘chosen’ minority.” (Pg. 36) In politics, this “elitism” manifests itself in the form of two types of “intellectual appeasers”. There are the more aggressive “liberals”, who believe in rule by physical force because “…people are unfit for freedom and should be ruled -‘for their own good’- by a dictatorship of the ‘elite’.”(Pg. 36) These are the Michael Bloomberg’s and Hillary Clinton’s of the world, who want to force people to buy smaller soft drinks or to buy health insurance because they are supposedly too stupid to take care of themselves.

Unfortunately, the other type of intellectual appeaser is predominately found in the Republican Party: “The more timorous type of appeasers, the ‘conservatives,’ take a different line: they share the notion of an intellectual ‘elite’ and, therefore, they discard intellectuality as numerically unimportant, and they concentrate on cajoling the brute (‘the masses’) with baby talk -with vapid slogans, flattering bromides, folksy speeches in two-syllable words, on the explicit premise that reason does not work, that the brute must be won through appeals to his emotions and must, somehow, be fooled or cheated into taking the right road.”(Pg. 36)

This analysis of conservatism provides a possible explanation for the popularity of Donald Trump in the Republican party. One thing I’ve noticed about Trump’s campaign is that it tends to be short on many specifics, but it contains a lot of emotional appeals, bromides, and verbal “put downs” of the other Republican candidates. This is not something new within the Republican party, though. Ronald Reagan was the master of “flattering bromides”, “folksy speeches”, and one-liners at debates. Trump is just a little bit more blunt in his delivery than Reagan was.

A third consequence of being an intellectual appeaser is moral cowardice, which is “…the necessary consequence of discarding morality as inconsequential.”(Pg. 36) For the “progressive” intellectual appeaser, the image of the brute is “…the symbol of an appeaser’s belief in the supremacy of evil…when his mind judges a thing to be evil, his emotions proclaim its power, and the more evil, the more powerful.” (Pg. 36)

This can be understood in terms of what the intellectual appeaser has accepted as “good” or “moral”. The intellectual appeaser is a proponent of self-sacrifice in the service of others, which is generally known as “altruism”. This means that “good” action for the altruist consists in destroying one’s own happiness and sacrificing one’s life in order to serve others. As a result, “good” and “right action” is self-weakening, and self-destructive. To the altruist, those who do not engage in self-sacrifice will be regarded as morally bad. However, the altruist can see that people who do not sacrifice themselves to others are more successful at living. For instance, someone who rejects altruism will have more wealth because they refuse to drain off their financial resources to help complete strangers. The person who rejects altruism has an easier life. In the altruist’s subconscious mind, the good has become associated with self-destruction, while the evil has become associated with the efficacious. The mistake lies in the intellectual appeaser’s belief that self-sacrifice is “the good”, when it is, in fact, the opposite of the good -if one wants to live.

The result of the intellectual appeaser’s inverted moral system is his belief that “…the self-assertive confidence of the good [the good by the standard of those who actually want to live] is a reproach, a threat to his precarious pseudo-self-esteem, a disturbing phenomenon from a universe whose existence he cannot permit himself to acknowledge -and his emotional response is a nameless resentment. The self-assertive confidence of the evil [those who violate individual rights] is a metaphysical confirmation, the sign of a universe in which he feels at home -and his emotional response is bitterness, but obedience. Some dictators -who boastfully stress their reign of terror, such as Hitler and Stalin -count on this kind of psychology. There are people on whom it works.” (Pg. 37)

The final result of this sort of moral cowardice of the “liberal” intellectual appeaser is to oppose those who want to live, the actual good, in order to appease those who want to violate individual rights, and eventually “…to pounce upon every possible or impossible chance to blacken the nature of the good and to whitewash the nature of the evil.” (Pg. 37) This is why so-called “liberals” were always quick to apologize for atrocities and human rights violations committed by the Soviet Union. It’s also why “liberals” engage in ad hominem criticisms of Ayn Rand because she collected social security -like we’re all supposed to be forced to pay into that system and then “fall on our own swords” and not try to collect out of it. (This is altruist thinking.)

A fourth consequence of being an intellectual appeaser can be seen in art. “Progressives” are always fascinated by movies and art that is a “…projection of cosmic terror, guilt, impotence, misery, doom…” (Pg. 37) “Liberals” and “progressives” are fascinated with movies that study “homicidal maniacs” (Pg. 37), like “Natural Born Killers” or “Dexter” because of their subconscious belief that such people are the norm. They believe destruction is the norm, while creation is an aberration, because they hate mankind.

A fifth consequence of being a “liberal” intellectual appeaser is “…the dry rot of cynicism…”(Pg. 38) that eventually sets in. As the “liberal” appeaser grows older, any “…pretense at any belief in altruism vanishes from his [or her] mind in a very few years, and there is nothing left to replace it: his independent capacity to value has been repressed -and his fear of the brute makes the pursuit of values seem hopelessly impractical.” (Pg. 38) I suspect that this is the point that has been reached by a politician like Hillary Clinton. At this stage in her life, she is probably running on fumes. Her denial of any responsibility in the attacks on the American embasy in Benghazi, and her attempt to shift blame onto a YouTube video shows this sort of cynicism. In response to Congressional criticism about Benghazi, Hillary Clinton said: “What difference at this point does it make?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM) It doesn’t make any difference in Clinton’s mind, because the truth doesn’t matter. All that matters to her is whether she can con the American people into making her President.

Sixth, the intellectual appeaser ultimately spends so much time pandering to her own image of the “the masses” as a stupid, irrational mob, that she eventually “…assumes the standards of those he [or she] professes to despise…Any man who is willing to speak or write ’down,’, i.e., to think down- who distorts his own ideas in order to accommodate the mindless, who subordinates truth to fear -becomes eventually indistinguishable from the hacks who cater to an alleged ‘public taste.’ He joins the hordes who believe that the mind is impotent, that reason is futile, that ideas are only means of fooling the masses (i.e., that ideas are important to the unthinking, but the thinkers know better…” (Pg. 38) In my own experience with self-described “liberals” and “progressives”, this has been true. They will imply to me that reason is just a means of tricking or fooling people, and that objective truth is not even possible.

Ayn Rand had a more realistic picture of the majority of mankind than the “liberal” appeaser: “No, men are not brutes; neither are they all independent thinkers. The majority of men are not intellectual initiators or orginiators; they accept what the culture offers them….their abstract range is limited…The truly deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over…When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.” (Pg. 39)

Ayn Rand was not pessimistic about the future, so long as the more intelligent people refused to become altruistic intellectual appeasers: “No, the average man is not morally inocent. But the best proof of his non-brutality, of his helpless, confused, inarticulate longing for truth, for an intelligible, rational world -and of his response to it, when given a chance he cannot create on his own -is the fact that no dictatorship has ever lasted without establishing censorship.” (Pg. 39)

How does one avoid becoming an intellectual appeaser? By being “…proud of his intelligence -regardless of their [the average person’s] approval or disapproval. No matter how hard this might be in a corrupt age like ours, he has, in fact, no alternative. It is his only chance at a world where intelligence can function, which means: a world where he -and, incidentally, they -can survive.” (Pg. 39)

Regrettably, I suspect that by the time most people are about 30, it would be very difficult for them to change. They have too many habituated behaviors and thought patterns. But, Ayn Rand remains popular with the young, so I think that there is still a chance.

Bernie Sanders: The Pied Piper of Self-Sacrifice

Bernie Sanders will likely loose the Democratic Party Primary. Despite this, I want to take a moment to discuss his ideology and his philosophy, which must be resisted -if you regard your own life and the pursuit of your own happiness as important. This is true whether you are “rich” or “poor”. I will discuss Mr. Sander’s philosophy in the context of an interview I found online. The interviewer’s name was Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB CEO Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation. Mr. Rosica is a Catholic Priest. The interview with Bernie Sanders was posted on the Washington Post web site, and can be found in its entirety at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/bernie-sanders-calls-pope-francis-a-socialist/2016/02/22/9fefd340-d9b4-11e5-8210-f0bd8de915f6_video.html

I transcribed the portions of the interview that I considered to be relevant to what I want to write about here:

Bernie Sanders: [1:00 minutes] “What the Pope has done in a very bold way is not only talk about the dispossessed…people who just don’t have enough income to survive…but what he has also done is raise the issue of the worship of money, the idolatry of money, and to say maybe that’s not what human life should be about…”

Fr. Rosica: [1:40 minutes]“They call you a socialist…do you think he’s a socialist [Pope Francis]?”

Bernie Sanders:[1:54 minutes] “….Well, what it means to be a socialist in the sense of what the Pope is talking about, and what I’m talking about, is to say that we have got to do our best and live our lives in a way that alleviates human suffering, uh, that does not accelerate the disparities of income and wealth. Uh, when he talks about wealth being used to serve people – not as an end in itself- I agree with that. In this country, and obviously the Pope is a worldwide figure, the church is worldwide, we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and if you go out in the street and you ask people, “Did you know that we’re the wealthiest country in the world?” They’d say “No, I’m working two or three jobs, I’m making 8 dollars an hour, I don’t know that we’re the wealthiest. I can’t afford childcare for my children.” So, what the Pope is saying is that human life, our existence, should be more than just the accumulation of more and more wealth, and everybody knows that right now we have the wealth, we have the technology, to provide at least a decent standard of living for all of our people, and so few should not have so much, and I think that’s what the Pope is talking about.”

Mr. Sanders isn’t exclusively talking about more welfare for poor people here. This is made clear when he says: “What the Pope has done in a very bold way is not only talk about the dispossessed…people who just don’t have enough income to survive…but what he has also done is raise the issue of the worship of money, the idolatry of money, and to say maybe that’s not what human life should be about…” (emphasis added) Mr. Sanders claims that people “worship” money.

What is money? It is a medium of exchange used instead of the barter system. Money involves trade. It is used when people want to voluntarily exchange goods and services with each other. It presupposes that (1) Each party to the transaction has something that the other regards as valuable, and (2) that each party has a right to use and transfer what he has produced as he sees fit. Why does each person have the right to dispose of what he has produced? It can only be the case if one regards his own life as important to him -if he wants to live. Money is a tool -it is a means of satisfying your material wants and needs by voluntary trade with other people who are also interested in satisfying their material needs. We all have these material needs -we all need a certain number of material goods in order to live. We all need food, clothing, and shelter, and it isn’t provided by nature. It must be produced by someone. If some produce while other appropriate by force what they have produced, then those producers are not free to live their lives. They are slaves to those who don’t produce.

I would hasten to add that it is possible to be irrational about the pursuit of money. It’s possible to pursue it over and above other things that would be more important to a rational human being. In the novel “A Christmas Carol”, Ebenezer Scrooge chooses to pursue more money over a marriage to the woman he loved (Belle):

[Belle:] “Our contract is an old one. It was made when we were both poor and content to be so, until, in good season, we could improve our worldly fortune by our patient industry. You are changed. When it was made, you were another man.”… [Scrooge:]“Have I ever sought release?” [Belle:] “In words. No. Never.” [Scrooge:]“In what, then?” [Belle:] “In a changed nature; in an altered spirit; in another atmosphere of life; another Hope as its great end. In everything that made my love of any worth or value in your sight. If this had never been between us,” said the girl, looking mildly, but with steadiness, upon him; [Belle:] “tell me, would you seek me out and try to win me now? Ah, no!” He seemed to yield to the justice of this supposition, in spite of himself. But he said with a struggle, [Scrooge:] “You think not.” [Belle:] “I would gladly think otherwise if I could,” she answered, [Belle:] “Heaven knows! When I have learned a Truth like this, I know how strong and irresistible it must be. But if you were free to-day, to-morrow, yesterday, can even I believe that you would choose a dowerless girl—you who, in your very confidence with her, weigh everything by Gain: or, choosing her, if for a moment you were false enough to your one guiding principle to do so, do I not know that your repentance and regret would surely follow? I do; and I release you. With a full heart, for the love of him you once were.” He was about to speak; but with her head turned from him, she resumed. [Belle:] “You may—the memory of what is past half makes me hope you will—have pain in this. A very, very brief time, and you will dismiss the recollection of it, gladly, as an unprofitable dream, from which it happened well that you awoke. May you be happy in the life you have chosen!” (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46/46-h/46-h.htm)

Scrooge was not truly acting in a manner that promoted his own life. He chose a little more money over love of a “dowerless girl”. (A “dowry” was money or property that a wife or wife’s family gives to her husband when the wife and husband marry.) The problem here is Scrooge had already satisfied a certain level of material well-being, but he choose a few more dollars over the love of his life (Belle). Even in this case, who did Ebenezer Scrooge hurt -in the most fundamental sense? He hurt himself. (Belle went on to find a man that valued her in a more rational manner -as shown by a later scene in “A Christmas Carroll”.) Scrooge’s own life was (presumably) of utmost importance to him, but he damaged that life by pursuing more money over Belle.

Rational egoism means making your own life your ultimate value, and recognizing that reality demands that you must take certain actions in order to further it, such as working to produce the material values you need to survive. But, rational egoism means more than just acquiring material wealth. If you want to fall in love, you actually have to go out, and try to meet people, and you have to go out on dates. If you want friends, you have to find people that you have things in common with, and make an effort to make them a part of your life. If you want knowledge, you must read books, go to school, and study new ideas. If you want to be rational, you must study logic, and learn the method of objectivity. If you want happiness, you must discover what will make you happy, and then pursue it relentlessly. The level of wealth that each of us chooses to acquire in relation to other important values is a personal matter, and will often depend on your personal context and situation. One of the values of Capitalism is that it leaves each individual free to decide what level of wealth he will pursue. If he chooses to irrationally pursue additional wealth over love or friendship like Ebenezer Scrooge, that is his choice to make, and he will live with the consequences.

But, Bernie Sanders is not talking about the irrational pursuit of money like the case of Ebenezer Scrooge, because he does not accept the morality of rational egoism. He does not want you to live your life for your own sake. He reveals this when he discusses what it means to be a “socialist”. As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that the actual, accepted, definition of “socialism” is along the lines of: “…a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies…” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Whether governmental ownership of the means of production is actually in anybody’s rational self interest is more of a question for Economics and History. (I refer you to the old Soviet Union for an example of how socialism just makes everyone poor.) Governmental ownership of the means of production is not what Bernie Sanders is primarily talking about:

Whose suffering is Mr. Sanders talking about here? Are we talking about you taking action to better your own life and maximize your own happiness? It’s doubtful, given the rest of what Mr. Sanders said, that this is what he means. Bernie Sanders is not advocating “socialism” per se here. He is advocating “altruism”. He does not believe that your own life is important for its own sake, or that you should pursue your own happiness -and leave others free to pursue their own as well. Mr. Sanders says we should all: “…do our best and live our lives in a way that alleviates human suffering…” Service to others and self-sacrifice, i.e., altruism, is what Bernie Sanders advocates. To Mr. Sanders, your own life is secondary to the purpose of alleviating the suffering of others.

Furthermore, for Bernie Sanders, the more successful you are -the more productive you are- the more you should sacrifice yourself to others: “…right now we have the wealth, we have the technology, to provide at least a decent standard of living for all of our people…” However, “wealth” is nothing but the material means by which you maintain your life and pursue your own happiness. Imagine that you want to spend more time furthering your writing career (or painting, or sculpture, or dance). If you want to buy a washing machine so that you don’t have to spend enormous amounts of time washing your clothes by hand, so that you can pursue your career in art, according to Bernie Sanders, you can’t -unless you first buy a washing machine for all the people in inner cities, Appalachia, and the Third World. Imagine that you want to get married to the love of your life. If you want to buy your girlfriend an engagement ring as a symbol of your love when you ask her to marry you, you cannot -unless you ensure that every unmarried bachelor in the world can afford to buy one for his fiance. Imagine that you want to have children. You can’t buy that toy for your child -until you buy a toy for every child, everywhere. Furthermore, would Mr. Sanders even limit this self-sacrifice to the material realm? Once this notion is accepted, shouldn’t you go out and marry a girl you don’t love out of charity? Hell, maybe you have to find a spouse for everyone else first? Shouldn’t you spend time with your worst enemy, who does nothing but denigrate you, rather than seeking out people who would value you and your friendship? What about the “suffering” of someone who chooses to be obnoxious and boorish in any social situation, such that no one wants to be his or her friend? Shouldn’t you put up with his or her undesirable behavior and be friends, even though you gain nothing from the relationship and feel totally “drained” by their toxic friendship?

What motivates support for Bernie Sanders? For some it may be genuine envy -a hatred of those who want to live and are successful at doing so. However, I have too much faith in the good will of my fellow man, so I refuse to believe that this is anything more than a small number of people. I think most people support Bernie Sanders out of fear. They fear loosing their job, they fear getting sick and having no way to pay for it, they fear their child will get sick or starve, and they won’t be able to pay for it. There are no guarantees in life, and that is a scary thought. I understand this fear, and I feel it, too, sometimes. But, the desire to use armed force to obtain from others the goods you need for survival must be resisted -and that is what we are talking about when we talk about the welfare state and socialism. If you refuse to pay taxes for the support of others, the police will come for you and arrest you. If you resist, they will use clubs and handcuffs. If you resist with a weapon, they will shoot you. If they put you in prison for not paying taxes, and you try to escape, you will be shot by the guards. Right now, you may regard someone else as “the wealthy”. You may think that you can “get away with” expropriating the goods produced by “the wealthy”, and make your own material circumstances better. Be aware that you’re playing a risky game. Someone, someday, may decide that you are “the wealthy”. They may also decide they have a big enough voting block and the necessary government force, i.e. a big enough gang, to take it from you. Then you will be the one to have his wealth expropriated.

What is Proof?

I was recently asked what I consider to be “proof”. This question came up specifically with respect to my blog post on why I am an atheist and not an agnostic. So what is “proof”?

I hold that the most essential form of proof is observation -that which you can come into contact with by means of your sensory-perceptual mechanism. In other words, “proof” is generally what you can see, hear or touch. (Taste and smell would also count, but these are pretty weak senses for human beings.) There are other types of proof that are possible, but they are related back to observation. Some things are not directly perceivable, but we know that they do exist because of how they interact with things that we can observe. We can observe the effects on things that we do observe directly, and thereby come to understand something about the imperceptible thing that was the cause.

In the natural sciences, much of what we would call proof involves observing the effects on things we can perceive by things that we cannot perceive, thereby providing evidence about the existence and nature of those imperceptible things. For instance, bacteria were first observed by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676, using a single-lens microscope of his own design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria#History_of_bacteriology With bacteria, human beings have been able to use a device with known properties to observe what was previously unobservable. The device was something that used specially shaped glass to amplify light. We knew that when glass was shaped in certain ways, it would make something appear bigger. We then extrapolated that if we bent and shaped this glass and combined it with other bent and shaped glass -other lenses- then it would amplify even smaller things. With sufficiently powerful enough lenses, such a device would eventually amplify the appearance of things that were too small to see with the naked eye. This device was named a microscope, and when Leeuwenhoek looked through it, he saw tiny organisms that were not visible with the naked eye, which were subsequently called “bacteria”.

The atom was discovered thanks to a number of observations made by scientists:
“In the early 1800s, John Dalton used the concept of atoms to explain why elements always react in ratios of small whole numbers (the law of multiple proportions). For instance, there are two types of tin oxide: one is 88.1% tin and 11.9% oxygen and the other is 78.7% tin and 21.3% oxygen (tin(II) oxide and tin dioxide respectively). This means that 100g of tin will combine either with 13.5g or 27g of oxygen. 13.5 and 27 form a ratio of 1:2, a ratio of small whole numbers. This common pattern in chemistry suggested to Dalton that elements react in whole number multiples of discrete units—in other words, atoms.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#First_evidence-based_theory

This knowledge was combined with other knowledge such as the phenomena of “Brownian Motion”:

“In 1827, botanist Robert Brown used a microscope to look at dust grains floating in water and discovered that they moved about erratically, a phenomenon that became known as “Brownian motion”. This was thought to be caused by water molecules knocking the grains about.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#First_evidence-based_theory

In the case of atoms, it was observed that a certain amount of tin always combined with a certain amount of oxygen in one of two ways, suggesting that whatever the ultimate constituents of tin and oxygen were, they must be discrete units. In other words, they must consist of units that cannot be divided any further -at least if you still wanted to speak of them as “oxygen” and “tin”. This knowledge, combined with other observations, such as Brownian motion, eventually led to the widespread acceptance of the existence of atoms. We inferred the existence of something, the atom, based on things that we could observe with our inborn sensory-perceptual mechanisms (our eyes).

The Theory of Evolution is another example of how we have come to have, at the very least, a theory, that explains our origins. There is no way to directly confirm this theory by direct observation. If it is happening, evolution happens over millions of years, with parents giving rise to slightly different offspring, who then are either more or less successful at survival because of these characteristics. These offspring have more children than those without those characteristics, and this continues on and on, until the resulting organism is so different from the original ancestor that it can no longer even be considered of the same species. This theory is based on things like:
(1) Geological observations that suggest the Earth is billions of years old.
(2) Observing the fact that different members of the same species of organism have different characteristics from each others. (E.G. some people have red hair while others have brown hair.)
(3) Parents are able to pass some of their unique characteristics on to their children. (E.G. blue-eyed parents have blue-eyed children.)
(4) Some of the unique characteristics an organism has can make it more successful at surviving and reproducing than if it didn’t have that characteristic. (E.G. a bacteria might have partial resistance to penicillin, while other members of its species do not, meaning resistant ones will tend to survive and reproduce.)

All of these observations suggest that, given sufficient time, one organism can be the ancestor of organisms that would be considered a completely different species, and that this occurs because of changing environmental conditions.

Proof of things that we didn’t observe by observing other things, and recognizing that there is a relationship, is not limited to the natural sciences. For instance, in a murder trial, all of the evidence that is presented is something that the judge and jurors can observe directly with their eyes and ears. For instance, the prosecution can present finger prints that were lifted from the murder weapon, and explain the chain of custody of the object such that no one had touched the murder weapon since it was discovered at the scene. Or, the prosecution can explain how each gun barrel leaves unique markings on the bullet when it is fired, and that the markings on the bullet found in the victim matches the markings on a bullet fired through the weapon by a ballistics expert.

Witness testimony can also establish other facts for the jury, such as if someone saw the accused walk into the victims house, and then heard a shot ring out. In that case, the jurors are relying on the eye witness’s observations, which are generally going to be believed, unless it can be show that the witness had some bias to lie or some mental problem that makes them unreliable. Even testimony such as someone seeing the victim and the accused in a heated argument a few days prior to the murder can be evidence, based on what we know about human nature. Human beings tend to do things because they have a motive for doing so, and if the accused hated the victim, then that would suggest he might have killed the victim. This recognition of human behavior is also based on observation.

What is the method of relating the things that we observe and then concluding the existence of something that we didn’t observe? The method of logic provides us with guidance in this area. Logic generally takes two forms: the inductive and the deductive. In deductive logic, we mentally place a specific instance into a general category or principle. It is reasoning from the general to the specific. For instance: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. “All men are mortal” is a general category or principle. Socrates is shown to be a specific instance of a man, and therefore everything that is known to be true about all men is true with respect to Socrates, i.e., that Socrates, just like all men, is mortal.

Deduction is a means of coming to have knowledge that doesn’t depend on direct observation of the conclusion, but the conclusion is based on other direct observations. In the case of the Socrates syllogism, you didn’t observe Socrates being born, growing old, and then eventually dying, but you were able to conclude without such direct observation that he is mortal -that Socrates will eventually die. What is the evidence for this? One such fact is that every other man who is known to have lived eventually died. You then assume that since Socrates is in this category of “men”, that he has the same characteristics as other men, and is therefore mortal.

The above discussion of deduction leads to the other major form of logic. Where did the “all men are mortal” part of the Socrates syllogism come from? This is a complicated subject, and is not even fully agreed on today, but, in general, such knowledge is gained by observing a sufficient number of concrete examples of a thing and then generalizing that all members of that category possess that characteristic. For instance, it is impossible to actually observe all men and see that they are mortal, but you observe enough examples that you can eventually conclude that “all men are mortal.” The problem is that this can lead to generalizations that are erroneous. An example of this is the generalization: “All swans are white.” You observed numerous examples of white swans, and you conclude that they are all white. But, one day, you discover a bird that is morphologically the same as white swans, but it has black feathers. How do you know when you have a valid generalization versus an invalid one? I would like to know the answer to that one myself. In general terms, I think that if you are clear about the nature of the thing, and your purposes when you generalize, then it is possible to come up with valid generalizations. So, in the case of the invalid statement “all swans are white,” if you were clear about what a swan is and also about why the color of swans matters to you, then you probably wouldn’t make such a generalization in the first place. I cannot even think of a situation where it really matters whether swans are black or white. If you regard swans as a food source, then their color makes no difference. If you simply think swans are beautiful and graceful, then I think that belief applies to both colors. For my purposes here, the minutia of valid induction can be put aside. The point is that you generalize, or induce, by observing a sufficient number of examples to reach the generalization. Induction ultimately depends on your observations -on what you can perceive with your senses.

Someone might claim that they have a means of gaining knowledge other than through observation or logical reasoning, but I am aware of no such means. However, if they can provide me with proof, then I am open to hearing what they have to say. I just don’t know how you provide proof without proof, which seems to be what they are claiming.

Why I am not an Agnostic

A friend of mine asked me about being an atheist recently, and I realized that I had written very little directly on that subject, especially in recent years. I typically just refer someone to what others have written on the subject. For instance, I found “Atheism: The Case Against God” by George H. Smith to be a fairly thorough explanation, and to be largely correct, although I haven’t read it since 1994, so I don’t know to what extent I might now have disagreements with that book.

I am a proponent of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. I am also fully convinced that it is inconsistent to be an Objectivist and be anything other than an atheist, but that is not actually an explanation for why I am an atheist. After all, maybe Objectivism is right on that one issue, and wrong on everything else, or vice-versa, or somewhere in between. So, in my mind, simply saying: “I am Objectivist, therefore I am atheist,” is not a satisfactory explanation to give to someone regarding why I am, specifically, an atheist. In this essay, I will explain why I am an atheist, but I will do so in the context of a related issue: Why I am not an agnostic.

For me, being an atheist rests on a logical principle that is known as “the onus of proof” principle. This is generally defined as something like: “He who asserts a claim has the burden of proof.” Every statement has a truth-value. That statement can be true, it can be false, or it can be “arbitrary”. A statement is “true” if there is evidence to establish that the statement is in accordance with reality. A statement is “false” if there is evidence to show that that the statement is not in accordance with reality. For instance, imagine that person A says: “All swans are white,” and then he shows person B ten white swans to prove it. However, person B then shows person A an eleventh swan that is black, thereby establishing that A’s statement is “false”. Or, Person A says: “All men are law-abiders,” and person A shows person B ten men who are obeying the law. But, person B then shows person A an eleventh man that is breaking the law, thereby showing person A’s statement to be “false”.

It is also possible to make a statement and offer no proof regarding that statement. Such a statement is neither “true” nor “false”, but “arbitrary”. For instance, person A says: “All swans are white,” and B asks for proof, and A says: “Prove that it isn’t so.” As far as B is concerned, A has made an “arbitrary” statement. In B’s mind, there is no evidence to establish it. Notice that unlike the example above, person A did not show ten white swans to prove his statement. He just “arbitrarily” asserted it.

Another example of an arbitrary statement would be if person A says: “Portland is a city in Oregon.” Person B then asks for proof, and A says: “Prove that it isn’t so.” As far as B is concerned, assuming that B didn’t already have any independent proof of this statement, this is an “arbitrary” statement. In B’s mind, there is no evidence to establish it. (In this case, it can be established that Portland is a city in Oregon, but the evidence simply hasn’t been presented to B.)

A more common example of an arbitrary statement will be something more mystical, along these lines: Person A says: “I was Julius Ceasar in a past life.” Person B then asks for proof, and person A says: “Prove that it isn’t so.” A has made an “arbitrary” statement. In B’s mind, there is no evidence to establish it.

So, if someone asserts: “There is a little gremlin standing on my shoulder, but he is invisible, and you cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell him, nor can you use any sort of logical reasoning or deduction to establish that he exists, now prove that it isn’t so,” then they have violated the onus of proof principle. Their statement is neither “true” nor “false”. It is merely “arbitrary”.

How should such an “arbitrary” statement by a person be dealt with by the listener? This question depends on what you think the purpose of knowledge is. I assert that human beings use their rational faculties –that they think- in order to maintain or enhance their individual lives. Knowledge, in general terms, is about grasping causal relationships between perceived entities in order to effectively use those things to maintain or enhance your own life. For instance, people study Biology and human anatomy so that they can understand how a particular entity, the human body, works, and how it interacts with things in its environment like viruses and bacteria. This enables them to develop means of curing disease, which maintains and enhances human life. Or, we study planetary motion, which gives us the ability to understand the nature of gravity, which, thanks to Isaac Newton, gave us the law of Universal Gravitation, which eventually, along with other knowledge, let us build rockets. This allowed us to launch weather satellites that we can use to predict hurricanes. Such technology gives us the ability to evacuate cities in the path of a hurricane, thereby saving countless human lives. One last example that isn’t from the natural sciences: We study man’s fundamental nature in order to understand and grasp certain general principles of action that will enhance or maintain his life. These general principles of action for maintaining one’s life are what Ayn Rand called “ethics” or “morality”.

If the purpose of knowledge is to allow human beings to understand laws of nature, i.e., causal relationships, then any assertion which is not backed up by proof or evidence is an attempt to get people to act on ideas that have no established connection to reality. Acting contrary to the facts in this way is typically not life-enhancing. It is more likely to lead to self-destruction. For instance, if I decided that I could flap my unaided arms and fly like a bird, then went to the roof of a building and jumped off, that will likely end badly for me. This is why it is important that all ideas, statements, and assertions be established in your own mind to be in accordance with reality before you act on them.

The onus of proof principle is the primary reason I self-describe as an “atheist”. When someone makes any statement, I expect proof, if I don’t already have it. Thus, if someone says: “There is a god,” I want proof, just like if someone said: “There is a little green man on Mars.” It just happens to be that within our culture, belief in some sort of god is so common that there is a word for what I am: “a-theist”. But, I am also “a-little-green-man-on-Mars”(ist). (If the majority of the human population were “atheist”, then there probably wouldn’t even be a word for it. That would just be considered “normal”.)

I once explained this “onus of proof” basis for being an atheist to someone who was generally a “secular humanist”, and he said that sounded like “agnosticism”. I must disagree. Let’s look at the definitions of “atheist” and “agnostic” found via a “define: atheist” and “define: agnostic” in Google’s search engine:

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

My interpretation of these two contrasting definitions is that agnosticism says: “I don’t know if there is a god or not, so I am not going to take a position one way or the other.” But, the truth-status of every assertion of fact matters, if you want to live. Imagine if this were done in some other area, such as if you worked at a construction site. If someone said: “There is a crane about to drop a ton of bricks on you,” the truth or falsity of this statement matters. If you look up and don’t see any crane or bricks, then you’re going to think: “This person is a liar. I am going to distance myself from him and not listen to him.” You might also investigate why he said that. Perhaps you will discover that you were standing on a hundred dollar bill you had dropped, and he wanted you to move so that he could get it without telling you the real reason. This says something about his character.

On the other hand, if you look up and see that there is a ton of bricks about to fall on you, then you will take action: you will get out of the way. (In that scenario, you’re more likely to take that person’s word for it, and jump out of the way. But, after the fact, if you see that he was lying, then, if you want to live, it will affect your opinion of him, and how you deal with him -or don’t deal with him- in the future. My point here is that the truth-status of his assertion matters to your life.)

Imagine what agnosticism would mean to your life in practice. Imagine that an advocate of Sharia Law came to an agnostic and said to her: “God says all women should wear a burka.” Is the agnostic going to think: “I don’t want to take a position on this, so I’ll cover my head half of the time, and not cover it the other half of the time,” or: “I will just cover half my head”? The agnostic can’t say: “Prove that there is a god, and until you do, I am going to disregard everything you say on this subject,” because that would be taking a position. If she does that, then she isn’t actually an agnostic in that situation. She is an atheist. Whether she wants to use the word “agnostic” to describe herself to others is a different issue, but in her mind the truth-status of the assertion matters to her, and she refuses to act on arbitrary assertions. She is an atheist, at least on that issue.

I suspect that there are several reasons why most secularists tend to want to self-describe as “agnostic” rather than “atheist”. “Atheist” is synonymous with “immoral” in our culture because most people believe that any sort of respect for the rights of others must necessarily rest in religious faith. (“Religion” and “morality” are synonymous in many people’s minds, although I don’t think that is correct, if morality means “principles of action necessary for living your life”.) Agnosticism also seems more “reasonable” or “middle of the road”, and our culture tends to promote “the golden mean” between two “extremes” as an ideal, but it is not actually more reasonable. Not if you care about living, because that is why we must adhere our minds to reality on all issues.

Ayn Rand Lexicon on “arbitrary“.

“Free Will” and “Determinism”

I was thinking about the “determinism versus free will” debate yesterday, and I had a couple of thoughts that I thought might help in this debate. I am aiming my thoughts at people who are generally secularists and who look for naturalistic explanations for all phenomena.

First, I think it’s useful to think about things that clearly *are* determined. These are all non-living things, some of which are man-made and some of which are not. Examples include: billiard balls on a pool table that bounce when struck by other billiard balls, water reacting to a pebble being thrown in it with waves, the planets moving in orbit around the sun, a mouse trap when it is set and then sprung by a mouse, a basket ball that is dropped from a height and then repeatedly bounces -but less and less until it comes to a stop, and a rube goldberg machine. Both a proponent of determinism and an opponent of determinism will agree that all of these things are completely “determined”. These things possess no “internal will” that causes them to act as they do.

Second, it is also useful to look at the human mind to see if all of our mental actions are the same in terms of “level of choice”. Internal introspection of your own mind is the only way to really do this. There are certain “mental behaviors” or “mental actions” that seem less “chosen” than others. Normally, your emotions typically just react to external stimuli with very little or no ability on your part to avoid feeling those emotions. You feel anger, hatred, sadness, or happiness in reaction to certain perceived events seemingly “automatically”, like a mousetrap going off. At any given moment, your emotions seem closer to the examples of non-living things that are determined. If you are a man interested in women, and you see a woman with a certain body shape, size, and age-range, who behaves in a certain way, you feel a certain amount of romantic desire for her. If you are a woman with a child, you will normally feel fear if you see your child facing some sort of danger -or you will feel hatred or anger for the source of the danger towards your child. If someone tries to rob you with a gun, you will feel fear or anger. If someone you care about dies, you feel sadness. In all cases, you have little choice about the feelings that you feel at that moment. Your actions with respect to those feelings appear to be more under your control, but not the feelings themselves. Over time, your emotional reactions to certain things seem like they change. If you see someone you were romantically involved with several years after you broke up, you may no longer have the same romantic feelings you once had for them, or not to the same degree, but this happens over time. At any given time, one’s emotions are more fixed. (Some psychological schools seem to be based on the assumption that your thoughts can change your emotions over time, so if you change your thinking, which is under your control, then you will eventually change your emotions, but that is beyond the point here.)

But, when it comes to certain tasks, your ability to mentally solve problems seem less “automatic” than your emotions. For instance, if you are a physicist trying to solve a complex math problem, you actually have to sit down and work on the math problems. If you are a doctor trying to diagnose a patient’s illness, you actually have to draw on your store of knowledge and try to come up with a diagnosis. If you are a computer programmer, you actually have to sit down and try to figure out what data structures and if-then-else statements will solve the problem you are trying to solve. If you are a lawyer, you have to think about the facts of the case, and then go research the law and try to determine what legal precedents the facts of your case fit into. If you are a structural engineer, you have to decide what are the requirements of your building, such as: What will it be used for? How many people will use it? etc. Then you actually pick construction materials, work out the load requirements, etc. This applies equally to “blue collar” occupations. If you are a taxi cab driver, and your fare wants to get to the airport from downtown in less than 30 minutes, you have to consider the time of day, the traffic conditions, which roads are under construction, possibly consult maps, and mentally devise a route. In all of these cases, the mental activity involved is not nearly as “automatic” as when you feel an emotion. They all involve thinking to solve the problem of human survival.

Now, I think that a dedicated determinist is just going to say that all of these examples of thinking are “illusory” examples of choice because at some “lower level”, we are all just made up of some substance(s) that appears wholly determined. For instance, he will say on the molecular level, an atomic level, or a subatomic level, you are actually determined. He says this with the following reasoning: Your brain is made of nothing but molecules (or atoms). Molecules are entirely determined. Therefore, your brain is entirely determined. In other words, your mind is actually just a more complicated example of things like the mousetrap discussed above. My concern with that sort of reasoning is that it basically says: what you perceive as reality is not really reality at all. “Reality” is the molecular level, and the world that you perceive is nothing but an illusion. But, if you cannot count on what you perceive, including your perception of the choice to think, then I am not sure that any sort of knowledge of the molecular level, or any other level, is actually possible. Without knowledge, life would seem to be, as Hobbes said in another context, “nasty brutish and short”.

The Epistemology of Originalism

The Constitution embodies certain philosophic, historical, and legal traditions. These included the Enlightenment as a cultural backdrop; the ideas of John Locke, Montesque, and Adam Smith; English legal and political systems; and the experience of the 13 original states under the Articles of Confederation.[1]

Some of the ideas and institutions embodied in the Constitution may have also been novel, such as the Supremacy Clause. This meant that questions regarding the proper sphere of the new Federal Government would not be resolved as political problems of the new Congress or of the State Legislatures, but as legal problems that a court must decide in hearing a case between private parties.[2] Interpreting the provisions of the Constitution would often ultimately lie with how Federal judges chose to interpret that document. But, how should judges go about interpreting it? By what methodology?

The meaning of key terms in the Constitution are often the subject of debate and dispute. For instance, the Second Amendment contains the words “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed…” However, those words are prefaced by: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”, and to the modern ear, a “militia” means something like the Army or the National Guard, and “regulated” means something like “controlled by government” or “restricted by law”. Proponents of gun control seize on the (arguably) modern meaning of these terms, and say that the Second Amendment is referring to the right to keep and bear arms as a member of the armed forces or a state’s national guard. Under this interpretation, the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is a mere “collective right”.

Others say that this method of interpreting the Constitution is incorrect. They say that you must look to the “original public meaning” of the terms “militia” and “well regulated”, and that they meant something very different at the time they were ratified. This “originalist” interpretation of the Second Amendment holds that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right of private citizens, unconnected to any organized military or law enforcement, to keep and bear arms, because that is how the average person at the time the Second Amendment was adopted would have understood those words.

Another example of a disputed phrase in the Constitution is the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments”. To a modern American, forms of punishment like flogging or the stocks would probably be considered “cruel and unusual”. Many would also argue today that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual”. The originalist says the modern understanding of those words is irrelevant. What matters is the “original public meaning” of the phrase “cruel and unusual” when it was adopted into the Constitution. The originalist notes that at the time the Eighth Amendment was penned, the stocks and flogging were common, to say nothing of the death penalty. Therefore the stocks, flogging, and the death penalty is not what is meant by “cruel and unusual punishments”.

Part of the appeal of the originalist view of Constitutional interpretation is the claim that “words mean things” and that the “Constitution means what it says”. In fact, this idea tends to be what its proponents put forward to the public as the meaning of originalism, and as the reason why more originalist judges should be appointed to the bench. An example of this “public meaning” of originalism could be seen with the editorial commentary arising around the US Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller[3]. In this landmark ruling, the Court held that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution did embody an individual right to keep and bear certain firearms, under certain circumstances, subject to certain legal restrictions.

In support of the Heller decision, a noted Constitutional scholar published an Op-Ed titled: “News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says”.[4] The author is a Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown Law School, so his presentation to the public of what originalism means is significant, especially the title of his Op-Ed, since it is what most people will read. The title of the Op-Ed implies: The Constitution uses specific words. Those words have a specific and definite meaning, and, implicitly, judges should follow that specific and definite meaning.

Another example of the “public face” of originalism is what current US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said in public speeches and interviews on the subject of originalism: “‘The Constitution means what it says. You figure out what it was understood to mean when it was adopted and that’s the end of it,’ Scalia said.”[5] Justice Scalia has made the assertion that the Constitution “means what it says” on several occasions, and he asserts that this is the essence of the originalist viewpoint: “[Interviewer:] Had you already arrived at originalism as a philosophy? [Scalia:] I don’t know when I came to that view. I’ve always had it, as far as I know. Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn’t change…”[6]

Scalia clearly says that originalism stands for the proposition that “words have meaning”, and that their meaning is definite and immutable over time. But, is this what originalism actually stands for? When one begins to study the underlying reasoning being put forward by the originalists in greater detail, it is not at all clear that this method of Constitutional interpretation is necessarily consistent with the idea that “words mean things”. It may not, in fact, be the case that all originalists actually believe that concepts have a definite meaning.

Before analyzing the originalist position, it will be useful to think about the phrase “Words have meaning”. What exactly does that mean? A “word” is commonly defined as: “…a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usu. without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use…a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word…”[7]

Words are the symbols that represent a concept. For instance, the words “dog” in English and “perro” in Spanish both mean the same thing. They both denote the same concept. But what does the concept refer to? This points to the fact that when people say “words mean things” what they really are saying is “concepts mean things” –that concepts refer to something definite. However, if words denote concepts, then where do the concepts come from? What do the concepts refer to? In the history of philosophy, this is known as the problem of universals:

“The issue of concepts (known as ‘the problem of universals’) is philosophy’s central issue. Since man’s knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of man’s knowledge depends on the validity of concepts. But concepts are abstractions or universals, and everything that man perceives is particular, concrete. What is the relationship between abstractions and concretes? To what precisely do concepts refer in reality? Do they refer to something real, something that exists –or are they merely inventions of man’s mind, arbitrary constructs or loose approximations that cannot claim to represent knowledge?”[9]

Various answers have been put forward over the centuries to answer the issue of concepts. “Realism” and “nominalism” are two popular explanations for what, if anything, concepts refer to in reality. “Extreme realism” represents the view of concepts held by Plato: “According to this view there are universal entities existing in an extra-physical realm. The ideas in the mind correspond to these entities. The objects in the physical world reveal them. Thus there are universal entities both within and without the mind. Therefore, the mental entities are real.”[10]

Another version of realism is the Aristotelian version: “The ‘moderate realists,’ whose ancestor (unfortunately) is Aristotle, who hold that abstractions exist in reality, but they exist only in concretes, in the form of metaphysical essences, and that our concepts refer to these essences.”[11]

Nominalists attempt to present an alternative to the realist viewpoint:

“At the opposite extreme from this view [the extreme realism of Plato] is nominalism. Nominalism models the idea on the thing. Since the thing is particular, the idea is particular. There are no general ideas because there are no general things. What are called general ideas, or concepts, are merely names, nomina, or even noises, flatus vocis. Thus there are no universal entities either within or without the mind. Therefore, universal entities are not real, in fact they are not even fictions, for there are no such things even within the mind.”[12]

Nominalists hold that all of our ideas are only images of concretes, and that abstractions are merely ‘names’ which we give to arbitrary mental groupings of concretes.[13]

In her book “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Ayn Rand sets out an alternative explanation for concepts that is different from both Realism and Nominalism. Rand disagrees with Plato that our concepts correspond to entities that exist in some supernatural or “extra-physical” realm. In her philosophy the, “universe” means the sum total of all existence, so there can be no realm that is somehow “outside” the universe. Furthermore, all of our knowledge is based on sensory experience and reasoning from our sensory experience. No realm of “pure forms” has ever been perceived, and there is no mystical insight or “revelation”.[14] She also disagrees with the “moderate realism” of Aristotle:

“…Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man’s mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly. Aristotle regards ‘essence’ as metaphysical; Objectivism [Ayn Rand’s philosophy] regards it as epistemological.”[15]

Rand also does not claim that concepts are merely names that we give to arbitrarily grouped concretes in our minds, as the nominalists claim: “The nominalist and the conceptualist schools regard concepts as subjective, i.e., as products of man’s consciousness, unrelated to the facts of reality, as mere ‘names’ or notions arbitrarily assigned to arbitrary groupings of concretes on the ground of vague, inexplicable resemblances.”[16]

A key distinction from nominalism in Rand’s philosophy is the fact that she regards concept formation as necessary for living. In other words, the only “reason” that human beings engage in reasoning is because human life would be very difficult, if not impossible, if we didn’t: “Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.”[17]

“The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action…It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, i.e., of one’s knowledge.”[18]

“Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality –or he can unfocus it…a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being…”[19]

For Ayn Rand, the purpose of thinking is human survival. One is considered to be “in a state of full, focused awareness” if one is purposefully directing one’s awareness of reality, and “purposeful” ultimately means aimed at the survival of a human being. Unlike the nominalists, since Rand regarded knowledge as necessary for living one’s life, it ultimately serves that purpose, and a mere random grouping of concretes in one’s mind without reference to that purpose would be self-destructive. Rand would distinguish valid concepts from invalid, or arbitrary, concepts by the fact that reality is what it is, and by the fact that human beings, an aspect of reality, also are what they are. A human being who wants to live, must do so by a specific method that is in accordance with his nature. That method of survival incudes the need to form concepts in accordance with the nature of the human mind, the nature of reality, and the thinker’s life, so that those concepts can further his life. Rand regards concepts as serving a purpose that can serve as a standard of proper concept formation, while the nominalists regard the process as purposeless, or “arbitrary”.

The actual mental process that occurs in concept formation is described in great detail in Rand’s book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and it is difficult to do it justice here.[20] Rand starts out by describing something that exists, an “existent”, and the three stages that perceiving an existent undergoes during concept formation. First an existent is viewed as an “entity”, which is like a child’s awareness of things. Second, an existent is viewed as having an “identity”, which is awareness of specific particular things. A child recognizes and distinguishes a particular existent from the rest of his perceptual field, thereby perceiving its “identity”. The third stage in the mind of a human being consists of grasping relationships among entities by grasping similarities and differences of their identities. The “implicit” concept “entity” is transformed into the “implicit” concept “unit”, which is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of 2 or more similar members.[21]

Prior to regarding existents as a separate member of a group of 2 or more similar members (as units), all that exists in the mind of the perceiver of an existent is a “percept”. “A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. The base of all of man’s knowledge is the perceptual stage.”[22]

Essentially, a “percept” is like a mental image of an actual, concrete thing that one perceives, held in one’s mind. If someone recalls their favorite dog in their mind, then this is a percept (or, at least, the memory of a percept). One recalls the actual existent that one has perceived, with his particular shape, his particular color, his particular size, and numerous other characteristics as a complete whole individual –as that particulardog. Prior to becoming conceptual, very young children exist on this perceptual stage, which appears to be the highest level of consciousness held by most vertebrate animals. Eventually young children learn to abstract –to mentally separate attributes, motions, or numbers from entities.[23]

Once particular existents are viewed as units, the conceptual stage has been reached: “With the grasp of the (implicit) concept ‘unit’ man reaches the conceptual level of cognition…”[24] Rand initially defines a “concept” as a “…mental integration of 2 or more units which are isolated according to specific characteristics and united by a specific definition.”[25] The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction. It is a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others.[26] Unlike a “percept”, which is a mental image or mental representation of particular existents observed with one’s sense organs, “…the uniting involved in concept formation is not a mere sum, but an integration, i.e., a blending of the units into a single, new mental entity.”[27]

What is the role of a “word” in Ayn Rand’s description of concept formation? “Words transform concepts into (mental) entities…”[28] Language isn’t just necessary for human communication according to Ayn Rand. This can be understood by realizing that even when a person is completely alone, he still uses language in a sort of “inner monologue” within his mind as he thinks or tries to solve a problem. This “inner monologue” is typically silent, in which one imagines to hear the words one is thinking in one’s mind. But, some people even literally “talk to themselves” aloud while alone and thinking. Rand would likely say that this is because language serves the purpose of providing a perceptual concrete that can act as a symbol in one’s mind representing the concept. In order for a concept to be used as a single unit, “…the enormous sum integrated by a concept has to be given the form of a single, specific, perceptual concrete, which will differentiate it from all other concepts.”[29]

Rand gives two examples of concept formation in Chapter 2 of her book. The concept for “length” and the concept of “table”. The pattern in her description of how these two concepts are formed is essentially the same, but each example appears to be used to reveal different aspects of the process. A key aspect of that process is “measurement”, in which there is a mental isolation of a distinctive characteristic of observed entities that all have that characteristic. There is a mental differentiation of 2 or more entities from others by means of a characteristic they have in common with the entities they are mentally isolated from.[30]Measurement is the “…identification of a relationship –a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit.”[31] The mental differentiation of 2 or more entities establishes a quantitative relationship by means of a standard that serves as the unit.

For instance, when forming the concept “dog”, one perceives 2 or more particular dogs and observes that they have certain characteristics, such as shape, size, and behavior, in common, which is the identification of a relationship amongst the particular dogs observed. The observed dogs are also mentally isolated from other perceived entities, such as cats, birds, and people, based on the shape, size, and behavior that they have in common with each other and that are different from the other perceived entities. Rand defines the characteristics on which units (the dogs) are differentiated from other perceived entities (like cats and birds) as the “conceptual common denominator”, which is the commensurable “…characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it.”[32] Birds, cats, and dogs all have some type of shape, size, and behavior, but dogs have a particular distinguishing set of characteristics that represent “…a specified category of measurements within the ‘Conceptual Common Denominator’ involved.”[33] In the case of forming the concept “table”, Rand says that the CCD is shape, which is a characteristic that tables, chairs, and sofas all have in common.[34] In the case of forming the concept “dog”, it would probably be more than just “shape”, because grasping the difference between dogs on the one hand and wolves or coyotes on the other (assuming one had perceived wolves and coyotes) would require an understanding of the size differences between those animals as well as the differences in behavior between wolves and dogs. For instance, wolves behave in a manner that is more “vicious” or “aggressive” and “predatory” than dogs, which have been bred for docility and dependence on human beings. Additionally, given the wide variety of shapes and sizes in domestic dogs, their behavior tends to set them apart as a distinct group more than those other characteristics, which tend to vary greatly. (Consider the size and shape differences between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua.)[35]

Rand says that this process of mentally isolating units, such as perceived dogs on the one hand from perceived birds and cats on the other, involves a mental process in which the units (the dogs perceived) are differentiated from others by means of a distinguishing characteristic, which are a specified category of measurements within the conceptual common demonintator[36] – which is shape, size, and behavior in the case of dogs. These distinguishing characteristics, as already stated, are something like the general “dog-like” shape of dogs (e.g. morphology, claws that do not retract, a tail, four legs), which is different from the “bird-like” shape of birds and the “cat-like” shape of cats, along with the “dog-like” behavior of dogs, such as friendliness towards humans, smelling everything, and wagging their tails when they are glad to see people, etc. Also, it should be noted that the distinguishing characteristics can exist in any quantity, but they must exist in some quantity. In other words, in the mind, the characteristic(s) is retained while “omitting” their particular measurements in the observed existents, the particular dogs that were perceived, that form the existential basis of the unit-perspective.

This brief, and hopefully accurate, summation of Rand’s position on concept formation should make it clear that when someone says “words have meaning” what the speaker means by that will depend either implicitly or explicitly on their position on the “problem of universals”. Do they believe that concepts denote pure “forms” that exist in some other realm, and are grasped by pure mystic insight as Plato did? Do they believe that the essence of a concept exists in each observed concrete instance of that concept, and is grasped by some ineffable “intuition” (the Aristotelian position)? Do they simply throw up their hands and say that it’s all just a matter of arbitrary whim as the nominalists do? Or, do they regard concepts as “…a mental integration of 2 or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics with their particular measurements omitted…”[37], where concepts serve a particular purpose that ultimately serves one’s survival?

Surprisingly, Justice Scalia, the premier public spokesman on originalism, seems to fall into the nominalist camp regarding the problem of universals:

“I do not suggest that Madison was saying that common-law lawmaking violated the separation of powers. He wrote in an era when the prevailing image of the common law was that of a preexisting body of rules, uniform throughout the nation (rather than different from state to state), that judges merely “discovered” rather than created. It is only in this century, with the rise of legal realism, that we came to acknowledge that judges in fact “make” the common law, and that each state has its own.”[38]

In the above quote, Scalia seems to suggest that there are only two alternatives for understanding the concept of law: The epistemological realist camp (either Platonic or Aristotelian), which is what Scalia thinks the founding fathers believed, or the “modern view”, in which the concept of law is “made”, rather than “discovered” (“legal realism”). In other words, for Scalia, the concept of law is ultimately arbitrary and purposeless. Legal concepts have no basis other than human social whim and arbitrary convention.

Furthermore, when you look at the underlying arguments in favor of originalism, they seems like arguments that a nominalist would be very comfortable with. Nominalists tend to look to social convention when determining the meaning of concepts. Since the nominalist regards concepts as just arbitrary groupings of concretes in the human mind, with no reason or purpose behind the groupings, the question of why particular concretes are grouped together arises. The nominalist will typically claim it is just a matter of social convention:

“Observe that, while condemning Plato’s mystic view of a concept’s meaning, the nominalists embrace the same view in a skeptic version. Condemning the essence-accident dichotomy as implicitly arbitrary, they institute an explicitly arbitrary equivalent. Condemning Plato’s “intuitive” selection of essences as a disguised subjectivism, they spurn the disguise and adopt subjectivism as their official theory…Condemning Plato’s supernaturally determined essences, they declare that essences are socially determined, thus transferring to the province of human whim what had once been the prerogative of Plato’s divine realm. The nominalists’ ‘advance’ over Plato consisted of secularizing his theory.”[40]

Originalists like Justice Scalia also tend to look to “social convention” when discussing the concept of law: “Hence the importance, to all of us, of textual meaning. How is that meaning to be determined? By convention. Neither written words nor the sounds that the written words represent have any inherent meaning. Nothing but conventions and contexts cause a symbol or sound to convey a particular idea.”[41]

Admittedly, Scalia could be saying one of two things here. It could mean that concepts are an arbitrarily grouping of percepts in the mind, based on nothing but human convention, which is nominalism. A more charitable interpretation of this quote is that Scalia simply meant that the words that concepts denote are based on nothing but convention. In other words Scalia could be saying some people refer to the concept “dog” using the English word “dog” while Spanish-speaking people refer to the same concept “dog” with the word “perro”, which is conventional, but the underlying concept has some connection to reality other than mere convention. (It is also possible that Scalia has simply never considered the distinction between words and concepts, and is confused on the issue.) However, a Platonist would not disagree that the word that denotes the concept (“dog” in English and “perro” in Spanish) is conventional. Platonism, nominalism, and any other popular theory of concepts could all agree that the word chosen (“dog” or “perro”) is conventional. The issue is whether the concept that the words denote is conventional. If all Scalia meant was that the word chosen is conventional, then no one would disagree with that assertion. That does not get to the essence of the issue, which is what does the concept refer to, and is there any other basis for it other than mere social convention? The evidence seems to suggest that Scalia is a nominalist, even if his nominalism is implicit, and he doesn’t fully recognize it.

In addition to a nominalist being comfortable with the originalist position, an originalist would not necessarily disagree with the nominalist position on the issue of concepts resting ultimately on nothing but arbitrary social whim. This is because originalists ultimately believe that judges should be restrained from overriding “the democratic process” because “democracy” tends to be their political ideal. Originalism tends to hold “majority will”, another phrase for “social convention”, as a sort of political-philosophical axiom, with no other ethical or political concepts underlying it:

“This belief in a jurisprudence of original intention also reflects a deeply rooted commitment to the idea of democracy. The Constitution represents the consent of the governed to the structures and powers of the government. The Constitution is the fundamental will of the people; that is why it is the fundamental law. To allow the courts to govern simply by what it views at the time as fair and decent is a scheme of government no longer popular; the idea of democracy has suffered.”[42]

“A concept of original intent, one that focuses on each specific provision of the Constitution rather than upon generalized values, is essential to prevent courts from invading the proper domain of democratic government.”[43]

“…the question to be decided is not whether the historically focused method is a perfect means of restraining aristocratic judicial Constitution-writing; but whether it is the best means available in an imperfect world. Or indeed, even more narrowly than that: whether it is demonstrably much better than what JUSTICE STEVENS proposes. I think it beyond all serious dispute that it is much less subjective, and intrudes much less upon the democratic process. It is less subjective because it depends upon a body of evidence susceptible of reasoned analysis rather than a varety of vague ethico-political First Principles whose combined conclusion can be found to point in any direction the judges favor…What is more, his [Justice Steven’s] approach would not eliminate, but multiply, the hard questions courts must confront, since he would not replace history with moral philosophy, but would have courts consider both…And the Court’s approach [which is Scalia’s approach in this case] intrudes less upon the democratic process because the rights it acknowledges are those established by a constitutional history formed by democratic decisions; and the rights it fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or rejected by the people, with the assurance that their decision is not subject to judicial revision…”[44]

In essence, the above passages by noted originalist jurists all reflect the idea that originalism is the method of Constitutional interpretation most consistent with the concept of “democracy” or “majorty will”. An originalist judge will only strike down legislation if it can be shown that the legislation violates “majority will”, and the only way that can be shown is if it contradicts an express clause of the Constitution. To think about it another way, the originalist believes that the Constitution, as originally enacted, represents the primary will of the people. The originalist recognizes that the Constitution was enacted by people long dead, but to him, the fact that the currently living have the power to amend the Constitution -and choose not to- means that its provisions still represents current majority will. Since the current majority could amend the Constitution, the originalist judge can safely assume that if they haven’t, then the majority does not recognize such a right.

This emphasis on the ability of the current majority to amend the Constitution to place new rights in it is why the originalist, for instance, would reject the idea that the Constitution enforces a right to an abortion. The originalist notes that there is no express provision in the Constitution granting a “right to privacy”, much less a derivative right to an abortion, as the courts have found. The originalist scoffs at the notion of judges finding “penumbras and emanations” in the Constitution, since, to his mind, the majority arbitrarily determines the scope and nature of rights in the first place, and the majority has chosen not to amend the Constitution to place a right to an abortion in the Constitution, which it could easily do if that was what it wanted.

Some will counter this originalist view by noting that judges, indirectly, are also the agents of majority will, since they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are ultimately elected by the people. The originalist does not deny this. He believes that both the legislature and judges should represent the majority will in their actions but, the originalist regards the legislature as being more likelyto represent the current views of the majority. This is because judges are appointed for life, while Congressmen and the President are constantly subject to election, and therefore represent the current views of the people on a matter. Representatives in the legislature are “directly appointed”, and are constantly subject to “dismissal” by the people via the electoral process. Therefore, the originalist reasons, since Congress and the President are more likely to represent the views of “the people”, judges should only override the decisions of Congress and the President when there is an express term in the Constitution forbidding the legislation. Furthermore, those express terms in the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with its “original public meaning” when adopted, because the judge must assume that the current political majority would amend the Constitution if they wanted that term to mean something else, or if they wanted to enshrine new rights in the Constitution: “The most accurate spokesman for the people of each generation are the legislators that those people elect to represent them.”[45]

The originalist adopts a hierarchy with regard to Constitutional interpretation: the Constitution, as understood by the ratifiers, is supreme, because if the majority alive today didn’t agree with it, they would amend it. The legislature is then of penultimate importance –with only the Constitution’s express terms, interpreted through their “original public meaning”, limiting its power. Judges should be given the narrowest latitude because they are the farthest away from majority will. Is there some other method of interpreting the Constitution’s terms that does not rely on the arbitrary whim of judges or the arbitrary whim of majorities? Not according to Antonin Scalia. The opinion he penned in the Heller decision makes his position clear: “JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which ‘majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,’ post, at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life tenured judges always get their way.”[46]

For Scalia, there can be no reference to the facts of reality, and man’s choice to live, in order to determine what Constitutional provisions mean. It is either the whim of the majority of voters or the whim of judges, because all concepts are nothing more than a subjective human decision that serves no purpose. Human beings arbitrarily select certain characteristics to serve as the basis for a classification, and they agree to apply the same term to any concretes that happen to exhibit these “essentials”.[47]

Unfortunately, originalists do not appear to believe that the Constitution “means what it says” because most originalists probably believe that concepts have no other basis than arbitrary human convention, which they call “majority rule” or “democracy”. In reality, concepts are the products of the human mind, but if they are to be considered “valid”, then they refer to things in reality, and serve the purpose of human survival. Legal concepts like “freedom of speech” and “due process of law” serve specific purposes, and describe certain fundamental truths about man and his relationship to the universe, if he wants to live. As the fundamental charter delegating each individual’s right to the retaliatory use of physical force to a central authority, a written constitution cannot be properly interpreted without a proper epistemology, which, in turn, requires an understanding of the ultimate purpose of concepts, which is the choice to live.

*********************************
[1]Dan Lacy, The Meaning of the American Revolution, Chapter 1, “The Eighteenth Century World” and Chapter 11, “The Federal Solution”. New York: Mentor Books (1964).

[2]Id.

[3] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

[4]Randy Barnet, “News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says.” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/news-flash-constitution-means-what-it-says

[5] M. Mbugua, “Justice Scalia says ’originalism’ protects American liberty.” http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/apr/scalia043007.html

[6] J. Senior “In Conversation: Antonin Scalia.” http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/

[7]Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (Kindle ed.), Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2009).

[8]E.C. Moore, American Pragmatism: Peirce, James, and Dewey. New York: Columbia University Press (1961), quoting DeWulf, M. Catholic Encyclopedia, XI, “Nominalism, Realism and Conceptualism”(1909).

[9]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., “Forward to the First Edition”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[10]E.C. Moore, American Pragmatism: Peirce, James, and Dewey, Chapter 2, “Theory of Knowledge”. New York: Columbia University Press (1961).

[11]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., “Forward to the First Edition”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[12]E.C. Moore, American Pragmatism: Peirce, James, and Dewey, Chapter 2, “Theory of Knowledge”. New York: Columbia University Press (1961).

[13]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., “Forward to the First Edition”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[14]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 5. New York:Meridian (1990).

[15]Id.

[16]Id.

[17]Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness “The Objectivist Ethics.” New York: Signet Penguin Books (1961).

[18]Id.

[19]Id.

[20]This will be, at best, a brief sketch of my best understanding of some of the key concepts set forth in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and the reader should consult that book for a better and definitive presentation of Rand’s position on the matter. See: Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 2nd Ed. New York: Meridian (1990).

[21]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 1: Cognition and Measurement. New York:Meridian (1990).

[22]Id.

[23]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[24] Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 1: “Cognition and Measurement”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[25]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[26]Id.

[27]Id.

[28]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[29]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[30]Ayn Rand Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[31]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 1, “Cognition and Measurement”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[32]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[33]Id.

[34]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[35]It is also seems possible that someone, given their own particular observations and life-purposes might conceptualize wolves, dogs, and coyotes together as one concept initially, and then subdivide later as the need arose. Rand discusses “borderline cases” in Chapter 7 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

[36]Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., Chapter 2, “Concept-Formation”. New York:Meridian (1990).

[37]Id.

[38]Antonin Scalia and Amy Gutmann, “Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws” in A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law: Federal Courts and the Law (Kindle Ed.) Princeton University Press (1998).

[39]Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy.” In: Rand, A. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed.” New York:Meridian (1990).

[40] Id.

[41]Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, “Preface”. St. Paul: Thompson/West Publishing (2010).

[42]“Speech Before the American Bar Association”, Washington, D.C., July 9, 1985, Attorney General Edwin Meese, III. In: Antonin Scalia, Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate (Kindle Ed.) Perseus Books Group (2007).

[43] “Speech at the University of San Diego Law School” November 18, 1985, Judge Robert H. Bork. In: Antonin Scalia, Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate (Kindle Ed.) Perseus Books Group (2007).

[44] McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), emphasis added.

[45] Section 70, “The false notion that the Living Constitution is an exception to the rule that legal texts must be given the meaning they bore when adopted”. In: Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, St. Paul: Thompson/West Publishing (2010).

[46] McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

[47]Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy.” In: Rand, A. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed. New York: Meridian (1990).

Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”

I am currently watching Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” on Netflix. I recall seeing bits and pieces of this throughout the 1980’s on PBS, but I was basically too young to follow it in great detail (I am only 38). It is a journey through intellectual history, with an emphasis on Astronomy and Physics, with a little Philosophy thrown in for good measure. I think that it is, overall, a very good series.

Episode 7, “The Backbone of Night” was an especially interesting episode since it seems to present a slightly different interpretation from how I have heard most Objectivists interpret the history of Ancient Greece, which tends to focus on Aristotle. Sagan agrees that the Ancient Greeks, especially the Ionians, were the birthplace of the scientific method of observation and experimentation. But, he goes on to say that there was another strand of thought running through Ancient Greece centered in Pythagoras, which deemphasized experimentation and observation in favor of “deduction”. (I think Sagan even used the word “deduction” to describe the Pythagoreans.) This ultimately led to a mystical world-view (or was based in a mystical world-view), which was expressed in the ideas of Plato. Interestingly, he even says that this Pythagorean worldview took reason out of the hands of the Ionian merchants and artisans –practical men concerned with ideas- and put it into the hands of the elite slaveholders, which was more consonant with the ownership of slaves. This was because the Pythagorean system emphasized the mind over the body, and “the body” was associated with the physical labor of the elite’s slaves. (I assume because the slaves would be viewed as less than fully rational manual laborers who merely used their bodies.)

Sagan then goes on to say that Plato’s ideas were basically adopted into Christianity. (Sagan hasn’t come out and said he’s an atheist, but he all but says so at various points in the series.) Sagan then essentially says that the early flowering of “expermentalism” in Ionia was suppressed by the Pythagoreans and later Plato, and that Aristotle was essentially no better than Plato. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that the “Ionian world view” was rediscovered, or so says Sagan. What I found interesting is how much he deemphasized the philosophy of Aristotle in the episode be implying that it was just a sort of outgrowth of Plato. Possibly this is due to the fact that the Catholic Church adopted Aristotle after the Renaissance, along with the Aristotelian notion that the Earth was the center of the universe, although, in fairness, the notion that the Earth was the center of the universe predates Aristotle. This might lead most to believe that Aristotle is to blame for the troubles of Galileo, Copernicus, and various other natural philosophers near the Enlightenment era.

My understanding is that while Aristotle was a student of Plato, he was much more interested in experimentation and observation given his belief that the essences that form the basis of mental concepts exist in each concrete thing, rather than in some other realm. I am no expert in classical philosophy, but this is my general understanding. At any rate, the “Cosmos” series is extremely interesting, and I recommend that you watch it if you haven’t ever seen it.

Religion or Morality?

I have been asked the following question on a couple of occasions by friends and acquaintances who tend to be less interested in philosophy and ethical ideas than I am. (I don’t necessarily consider less interest than I have in such issues to be a vice. It depends on the context of your own life.) When I discuss my atheism with them, they will ask something along the lines of: “What will keep people moral without religion?” It is difficult to answer this question with a 2-minute response, which is normally about all the time I can hope to get from them on the subject. The difficulty of a short response comes from the fact that the question presupposes some more fundamental questions. One of the more important fundamental questions presupposed by this question is: “What is morality and why do we need it?”

Before I begin, I should preface this explanation with the following: I don’t think that the moral system I am describing here is something I came up with first-hand. Most of my thinking in this area has been highly influenced by the writings of Ayn Rand. I discovered her writings at about age 15, and I have been studying them ever since. Reading her works has convinced me that she was far more intelligent than I am, and I’m a pretty smart guy, so that’s saying a lot. If you like what you read here, then I recommend that you pick up some of her non-fiction works like “The Virtue of Selfishness” and read it. However, you also shouldn’t assume that what I am writing here is consistent with what was expressed in Ayn Rand’s writings. Describing her philosophical system is not my purpose here. My purpose is to explain what I believe to be true. As a result, I have tried to stay away from using a lot of terminology that may only be familiar to someone who studies Rand’s ideas. I have endeavored to “put things in my own words”, or to express them in a way that a broad cross-section of society will hopefully understand.

The question “What will keep people moral without religion?” can mean different things, depending on what is meant by “morality”. The questioner could really mean: “What will keep people obeying god’s word so that they can get into Heaven?” If this is really what the person is asking, then the answer is: “Since god and heaven don’t exist, there is no reason for people to act like they do.”, and that would be the end of the discussion. It should also be noted that many atrocities have been committed by people who hold getting into heaven as a goal, so I doubt that this is a good motive for morality, as that is commonly understood in America. Islamic terrorists, various cults in Western nations, and various Christian sects in pre-modern times, have all shown what destruction religion can unleash. (Modern American mainstream religions are so infused with secularism, that the damage they can do is more limited.)

The questioner could have a more secular goal in mind with the question, which is something like: “What will keep people from behaving in a way that is destructive of the social order?” If this is what is really being asked, then the questioner is basically asking: “Without religion (or at least the illusion of religion) what will keep people from robbing, murdering, raping, and enslaving other human beings?” This is a better question to ask because the questioner does seem to have some secular purpose in mind, and it should therefore not be dismissed as quickly as the more mystical variant of the question discussed above. To answer this version of the question, several facts must be understood. The questioner could believe that society is important for at least two reasons: First, he could believe that “society” is a sort of entity, that is more important than any of the individuals that make it up. Second, he could believe that it is easier for him, as an individual, to live in a social setting than to live alone. This first view of society, and the individual’s relationship to it, is commonly known as collectivism. This view mistakenly holds that society is somehow “more than the sum of its parts”. In reality, society is nothing more than a number of individual human beings. This collectivist view of society also holds that the purpose of the individual is to benefit society, rather than social relations benefiting each individual living in society. Collectivism is incompatible with the needs of anyone who wants to live, which means it is incompatible with human life. History has shown this to be true, since not only were collectivist states like the Soviet Union oppressive, they were also poor compared to nations that allowed individuals to pursue their own self-interest to a greater degree. For this reason, if this is what the questioner means when he asks the question “What will keep people moral without religion?”, then I would note that I reject this brand of “morality”. (Any further discussion of what is wrong with collectivism is beyond the scope of what I am writing about here, so I refer you to numerous writings by Ayn Rand on the subject. Her novel “We the Living”, which is set in Soviet Russia, and shows how those who want to live are destroyed under collectivism, is a good place to start.)

A person who is not, implicitly or explicitly, a collectivist probably means something like this by the question: “Without religion what will keep people from behaving in a way that would destroy society, which is only important because every individual person is actually better off living in (a certain type) of society, rather than living alone?” However, to answer this question, it must first be recognized that there are several implicit assumptions expressed in the question. First, the questioner assumes that his life is important; second, the questioner assumes that social existence, in other words, the individual living in a society, is preferable to living alone; and, third, that people need to act in certain ways, and refrain from acting in other ways, to ensure that their self-interest is maximized. Examining these assumptions will help to answer the question.

Addressing the last of these assumptions first, a person must engage in certain behavior if he wants to maximize his chance of living. Long-range planning tends to maximize one’s chances of survival. Deferring some consumption now for the sake of greater rewards later is an important concept that all adults must learn, in order to live successfully. For instance: If you plant some of the seeds you have, rather than eating all of them now, then they will likely grow into more plants later, and you will have even more seeds to consume in the future. If you study hard in school now, then you will have a better job later. A person must also engage in certain behavior for another, somewhat related, reason, which is that the universe acts in accordance with natural law. In other words, things in reality have a certain nature, or identity, and they act in accordance with that nature, which is the law of causality. Examples of natural law abound: If you heat a piece of wood to a certain temperature, under certain other conditions, it will catch on fire. If you eat certain types of plants they will nourish you. Water extinguishes fire under certain conditions. Plants need light to survive. If human beings want to survive, then they must take certain actions.

The fact that human beings must take certain actions, if they want to live, leads to another fundamental observation about why human beings must engage in certain behavior. The facts demonstrating this include: People, like all living organisms, must eat in order to live. People must protect themselves from the elements, by obtaining clothing and shelter. And, people are not automatically born knowing how to maintain their lives. Furthermore, the human mind has a certain nature (a certain identity). Specifically, a person can only gain knowledge by following a specific process of observing the world around him, and reasoning from those observations. This is what is meant here when man is described as “the rational animal”. Additionally, human beings must engage in a process of thought to gain knowledge about the world around them, because they do not automatically know what is in their best interest. If you observe a child, you will see him make choices that a rational adult would not make. For instance, he will eat too much candy and get a stomach ache because he doesn’t know any better. (You can also observe some adults make bad choices, either through ignorance or due to willful irrationality.) This is because human beings must gain knowledge through a process of thought and understanding, and this includes knowledge of what is in their best interests. It must also be clearly understood that the process of thinking is not automatic, and requires effort. This means that if a person is to survive, he must develop a habit of thinking, and applying that reasoning to the task of survival.

Another implicit assumption in the question about morality and religion is the assumption that the questioner’s life is important to him. If the questioner is saying that morality is necessary to maintain a social order that is beneficial to him, then he is implicitly saying that he wants to live, and that living in society will maximize his survival. The choice to live is a basic choice, which logically presupposes all other moral choices. If one chooses to live, then one must make choices in accordance with the standard of “man’s life”. Since human beings have a certain, specific nature, they must act in accordance with that nature, which is the nature of a living man. All of the actions of a human being desiring to live should be in accordance with the standard of “man’s life”. Living by the standard of “man’s life” means living by the standard of human nature, in other words, by the standard of man, the rational being. It should also be noted that the emotional result of living in accordance with the standard of “man’s life” is normally going to be happiness. (Although it may be possible to fail to achieve this state due to factors beyond one’s control. For instance, being placed in a concentration camp or having a terminal illness may make happiness impossible, despite one’s best efforts, but these unusual circumstances are fairly rare. Living in accordance with the standard of “man’s life” is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of achieving happiness.) The capacity for happiness is another aspect of human nature.

A final implicit assumption in the question about morality and religion is the assumption that living in society is preferable to living alone. This observation is true. A person who wants to live and achieve happiness can normally do so more successfully living and dealing with other human beings than he can on his own, like Robinson Crusoe. It would be impossible for any individual to produce all of the material products and goods that he enjoys today on his own. Imagine trying to manufacture completely from scratch one’s own computer, TV, food, house, car, and clothing. All of these things are available without needing to know how to create them oneself because of a concept from economics known as “the division of labor”. Basically, this is the idea that by specialization and trade, human beings can produce more than if they had to produce all of the products necessary for survival on their own. Implicit in the idea of trade is the concept of private property rights: that a person is entitled to keep and benefit from the material goods he produces. Also implicit in the concept of trade is the concept of justice: that each person should only receive a benefit, in this case, material goods, because he has earned it. The concepts of private property rights and justice are principles that one must obey in order to live successfully with others in society. In addition to the material benefit one receives from living in society, it should also be noted that there is a certain “emotional” or “spiritual” satisfaction (in a non-mystical sense) from doing so. The concepts involved here are somewhat more complicated than the more obvious material benefits of living in society, but they do exist. These benefits include friendship and romantic love. These relationships also demand that you treat people in a certain way. If you constantly lie to and betray a person, then they will not remain your friend for long, because there is no benefit in it for them. If you constantly fail to live up to promises of fidelity to a lover, then they will soon seek love elsewhere. Such relationships demand that you be honest and that you keep your promises. Furthermore, the need for such relationships demands that you judge others, and determine if they are worthy of your esteem and love.

Implicit in the idea that social existence is preferable to living alone is also the condition that one will be able to create and benefit by the things one creates. For instance, if a farmer is to benefit from living in society, then he must be free to produce crops, and to exchange those crops with others for the things he needs to live. If this social condition is not met, then living alone is actually preferable. For instance, living alone on a desert island is preferable to being in a totalitarian dictatorship or concentration camp, where you are not free to produce the material goods necessary for living, and to form relationships with people of your choice. Only if the society one lives in recognizes and respects the sanctity of the individual to produce the things necessary for his existence and to engage in the sorts of relationships that benefit him emotionally, will it be a society worth living in.

Now that the implicit assumptions contained in the question “What will keep people moral without religion?” have been examined, the answer becomes simple: Morality, by which I mean the principles and standards necessary for living, is necessary precisely because I want to live and pursue my own happiness. If anything else is meant by “morality”, then I reject it as either a mystical fantasy or as a collectivist nightmare, not worthy of my time.

There are many other issues that are closely related to the proper moral system I have set forth here that should be explored in greater detail. For instance, a discussion of government, and its essential role in a proper society, needs to be discussed. I think that government is essential for at least two reasons. First, human beings are not omniscient, they can be mistaken. Second, all people must choose to act right, and they are therefore capable of making the wrong choices. This means that a person can mistakenly believe that another person has committed a wrong, and a process is therefore needed to determine when a particular individual accused of committing a wrong against another has in fact done so. (This “process” owed to all people accused of a crime is commonly referred to as “due process”.) It would also be useful to flesh out the content of morality in the following sense: What are some of the specific “principles and standards” by which one must act in order to live? I have already discussed one, which is the most important: the habit of thinking, and applying that reasoning to the task of survival, which can be described as “rationality”. But simply saying: “If you want to live, then be rational.” is probably not sufficient guidance without looking into what that means in various common situations. But, in order to avoid turning this into a book, I will leave all of that for another time.