The Objectivist Metaphysics ; a dedication to Reality as it is.

Because Objectivism is an integrated philosophy with a hierarchical structure, all other branches of Objectivism rest on Objectivist metaphysics. Metaphysics includes those basic facts about reality which one must understand before one can learn Epistemology, because one cannot attempt to study knowledge until one has established that there is a reality to know.

Objectivist metaphysics relies on three primary axioms which are (in order of primacy): Existence, Identity (and its corollary Causality), and Consciousness. These axioms can be summarized as follows:

Existence 

Something exists, including the things I perceive.

Identity (and Causality)

Everything is something specific and acts according to its nature.

Consciousness 

I am conscious of the things I perceive and my perceptions reflect reality.

The three axioms are also implicitly stated and affirmed by any statement made, which boil down to: "There is [Existence] something [Identity] that I am aware of [Consciousness]."

The Axioms

The Primacy of Existence

The Primacy of Existence premise says that reality is objective: the universe exists independently of the particular psychological states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual cognizers. This view was also held by Aristotle. Objectivism distinguishes The Primacy of Existence from the Primacy of Consciousness. The Primacy of Consciousness holds that consciousness is prior to existence. It is the view that one could, in principle, be conscious exclusively and entirely of one's self. Objectivism rejects this view: it holds that objects present themselves to consciousness in such a way that they must be genuinely "other," that is, non-identical to one's own consciousness. This axiom is the basis of the Objectivist refutation of both theism and idealism. Though Objectivism grants that some particular existents are mental (e.g., minds, thoughts, desires, intentions), it holds that, if what fundamentally exists is independent of any consciousness, then the universe as a whole is neither the creation of a divine consciousness nor itself mental. (This argument is laid out in Chapter 1 of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand).

The Law of Identity

The Law of Identity states that everything that exists has an identity. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific nature, consisting of various properties or characteristics (as Rand wrote, "to be is to be something in particular"). Moreover, Objectivism holds that the properties and characteristics in question must exist each in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means finitude. According to Objectivism, then, everything that exists has a specific finite nature. To have a specific, finite nature, is incompatible with having a self-contradictory nature. Therefore, the whole of reality is noncontradictory; though contradictions might exist in thought, there are no contradictions in the real world.

The Law of Causality

Each thing's specific nature determines how it acts. This principle is Objectivism's formulation of the Law of Causality; it is held to be a corollary of the Law of Identity (see above). Contemporary philosophers define the Law of Causality differently, e.g., as "Every event has a cause." Objectivism rejects this contemporary definition because it leads to paradoxes concerning free will and cosmology. A further implication of the Objectivist account of causality concerns explanation: since genuine explanation is causal, nature can only be explained in terms of nature (i.e., without reference to the supernatural).

The Axiom of Consciousness

This axiom states that consciousness is an irreducible primary. It cannot be analyzed in terms of other concepts and it is at the foundation of all knowledge. While we can study the faculty of consciousness, we cannot study what it means to be conscious as such. She writes that "consciousness is conscious," affirming both that the thinker is conscious and that he is conscious of something external to himself. She writes, "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms" (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1015). One cannot be self-conscious without first being aware of something other than one's awareness. Rand's axioms of consciousness is different from Descartes' Cogito principle in that Descartes' Cogito is an a priori principle, while Rand's axiom of consciousness is a self-evidency only available in perception.

Mind and body

Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, viewing man as a single integrated being, with both the mental and physical realms having particular causal properties.


Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Metaphysics&oldid=9213"

Yaron Lectures: Inequality and the Denial of Free Will (AynRandCon 2016) rebutted

I want to start off this rebuttal of certain things mentioned in Yaron Brook's recently posted speech by saying I am not here rebutting the Philosophy of Objectivism. I am an Objectivist myself as I have mentioned several times in previous articles. Nor is what I say about Yaron Brook on any given subject means in anyway anything he says is the official view of the Ayn Rand Institute. Nor that I am critiquing any other lectures or speeches he has given on other topics on which both him and I see 100% eye to eye. For example his defense of Capitalism and defense of individual rights as the role of Governing.

The only person I am rebuking in anything he said is the individual human 5th Walking Ape called Yaron Brook. Also, it is specifically the subject of Evolutionary Psychology or our Sociobiological nature that these criticisms are about and not that he is defending free will. I like Yaron am someone that believes in free will and in fact has more than one article providing all the evidence for us being able to make choices, and take responsibility irregardless of people proving Evolutionary mechanisms for our psychological mapping.

Within his lecture in which he made statements about how being for economic equality is to be denying free will. He made several comments which much like Gregory before him showed he did not understand our sociobiological nature as the animal we are. He indeed claims that genetics and the environment we are in do not have any substantial impact on choices that we make. That basically next to nothing is baked into us as Gregory had previously said before him. This is incorrect as we have quite a lot that is baked into us and is part of human nature. This includes after affects from our tribalism of passed generations of our species.

This does not mean that tribalism or collectivism is how one should live now. It simply says we evolved in a time and place where we were that way. Prior to the type of modern day post-industrial societies that we live in now. I agree with Yarron 100% that the ideal way to live in the modern day is as much as a rational person as possible. That Reason AKA the facts of reality not faith or mysticism is our means of survival in a world that is not the one our instincts evolved in. You will nowhere in this article see a dispute with the ideal world being one in which not all, but, way more of the population follows reason and facts not their other instincts or "intuitions" or anything like that.

However, I do not wish to live in a world were everyone has all of a sudden become an Objectivist. I want a world where people use reason, where they believe in rational things not Woo Woo or pseudo-science bullshit. I want a world where more people have integrity, act and think honestly, understand and live justly with others in society. Where people do not think other humans are theirs to use for their own ends. They do not need to become Objectivists or even persay use Objectivism to realize the importance of these virtues. Do I wish most of the world lived by the virtues found in Objectivism?; Rationality, Integrity, Honesty, Proper Pride, be Just with others and treat all people as they deserve based on the content of their character. Absolutely! However, that is different from them needing to agree with Objectivism and take it on as their philosophy.

It sometimes seems that Yarron and SOME others at ARI (not all) need evolutionary psychology to be wrong in their mind in order for Objectivism to be defended. However, I have the complete opposite view; if Objectivism cannot be reconciled with facts found out about existence and the human animal passed Ms. Rands time of being on this planet than it is Objectivism that is wrong not psychology proven through the facts found about evolution. Luckily, no Evo-Psych discovery has ever shown Reason is not preferable to delusion quite the opposite. It shows that our evolved natures are prone to all kinds of missteps unless we ground what we know in the facts as understood in the light of the Reason part of our brain chemistry. Living in reality is the optimal way to survive.

Evo-Psych does not say existence does not exist outside of us and our minds take it in. In fact, once again if Yaron and others actually read people like Steven Pinker this is the entire reason we need to understand human nature via evolution. Due to that being how we really got here from the past and that our brain is indeed what we see the outside world with. We need to KNOW how the mind works, so, we can know how to harness our Reason, Rationality and our Will to self-regulate our actions better. How to be the Rational Animal in the most humane way possible for the agent trying to be Rational. In other words how to "take the reigns of what we have been given to be the Angels of our Better Natures."

We are not deterministic beings in any sense in which you could predict specifically what every single human agent is going to do in life simply based on the fact that we are understanding the agents/humans motors inside them. Evo-Psych is not determinism and never has claimed to be determinism as Gad Sadd had told Yaron in person when he was interviewed by him. Knowing the Ultimate Goals of us as a species through our passed like procreation. Or understanding how Kin Selection works doe not remove free will from peoples Minds. We still make choices, introspect and then change actions. We also do this by choice; we can choose to not do it and drift along in life just acting on instincts till we get into trouble as we hit a wall where our instincts harm not help us.

This is why so many people are irrational they are making the choice and reasons could be numerous not to think. This is the Objectivist definition of free will and not a single study has refuted that we can pick to think or not to think about x,y, or z and then to act on the thought or pick not to act on it. We also can work through things like therapy to not pay attention to intrusive thoughts that are bad and not volitional. The fact that therapy such as CBT work actually proves that the Objectivist definition is way closer than most traditional ideas of a human will that require some sort of Ghost in the Machine. Nothing I have said above would be something any Cognitive Psychologist would ever disagree with. This is because there is ample evidence of this ability in the human brain/mind.

As I said previously in an article Evo-Psych is descriptive not prescriptive. It does not say you need to nor should go on the evolved instincts you have obtained. It simply shows what is there, how it got there and what needs to be remembered when trying to be Rational in order to be humane. Like I said on my last critique of a speech by an ARI fellow on Philosophical matters me and Mr. Brook agree 100% we are both Objectivists, but, that does not mean everything that comes out of their mouth is something I will agree on. I agree with him on Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics of rational and ethically performed egoism, the political ideal being Capitalism and even on Aesthetics. Where we disagree is Application of this. Application can be wrong for a Philosophy while the main tenants itself are good, noble and completely in touch with reality. Errors of application can happen from ignorance/cognitive bias. This is what I feel is going on with certain topics by certain Objectivists.

Confessions of a Climate Change Skeptic

There was a time when I was very much a believer in the idea that climate change was a major issue that needed to be tackled. That was before I actually looked into all the studies and not just some of them pre-picked by the UN or other groups whom had a vested interest in there being a catastrophe. I realized climate was not in the horrible state it was said to be and in fact the environment is much better in this era than it had been in our human past. We are living one of the Greenest forms of planet Earth that has ever existed.

Not only that, but, the vast majority of climate alterations is not even human caused. There is much more natural influence on the overall climate as part of Earths climate cycle than humans. Water Vapor is the most important greenhouse gas for alterations in Earths climate along with various sunspot and solar cycles. Man-Made CO2 pales in comparison to the effects of all the natural inputs on the Earths climate sensitivity. In fact, the Earth has been in a cooling phase since around 1998. Where it is either cooled or stayed the same with a complete stop in Global Warming overall. Even the Met Office in the UK had mentioned this at one point.

I not only find no climate catastrophe, but, find very little credible evidence for the climate changing by very much at all since around 2000. Not when you look at all the actual satellite minus the computer models biases. It shows clearly there is no issue and the globe is not changing the way it was thought to be within the broader scheme of things.

Which is a pity really because as we are in fact still in an Inter-glacial Period historically we should be pumping much more CO2 into our cooled down atmosphere to make it warmer than it is now. I say far from dissing the Oil Sands we should be looking for more of them all over the West. Dig, find that black gold and stop feeding the Saudi Arabians that support the likes of ISIS.

CO2 is a necessary element of life and it is NOT a pollutant it is food for this Earth and its organisms. Not only that, but, fossil fuels help make it so we can have all the wonderful things that help us survive. Including helping to run life saving medicines, schools and all of our homes. I love fossil fuels and I also think we should be using more Nuclear Energy too. Wind cannot sustain the infrastructure of a major city. We need actual fuel like fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

The point is the environment lobby really only looks at studies they do themselves or that proves them right. They never look at all the studies or all the research and see what is really out in the science. Only viewing studies to see they agree with you is not scientific and nor is it reasonable. I look at all kinds of sources for my information and go by what I find.

I do not just go by one or two sources. We are in a lot of ways in one of the most clean generations of this Earth and we are not in an apocalypse things are good right now. People are just too blinded with BS information, myths, lies and downright stupidity. To paraphrase John Stossel's old special name.

Relax the world is fine, the world is not ending and it is not as horrid as your worried wort negative thinking wants it too be. We are all too many of us seeing only the bad and often wrong stories. We do not see how we are living even for all the crap in one of the best times to be alive for so many reasons. Lighten up people and enjoy life. We only got one, so, live it while you can and quit worrying that the world is ending. It is not, it is just your primate wetware mind needing a boogeyman to fight.

Evolutionary Psychology is descriptive and not prescriptive

Lately, I have tackled the idea that evolutionary psychology is somehow unscientific or some form of modern day determinism. I have also been pointing out how some Objectivists seem to be running away from the truth and reality when it comes to the subject of how much of human nature is baked into us. Not all, but, definitely way too many people whom take Objectivism for their personal philosophical outlook also run from the reality of the Sociobiological aspect of our human nature.
This is because they think it derails the idea that we can be a rational or irrational person based on self-regulation.

However, there is nothing in accepting the evolutionary psychology aspect of human nature that says we have no reason or we cannot be a rational animal through forms of self-regulation or "free will." Just because we have way more baked into us than Ms. Rand thought due to how long ago she lived when it comes to matters of human psychology does not make reason not real. Evolutionary Psychology or Sociobiology does not say anything about us not being able to be rational or basing our choices on reason over faith or the lack of "will." It does say we have a greater proportion of our desires, tendencies and traits from a mix between various forms of biology and our environment based on our nature.

This does not say anything about us not having any sense of free will or self-regulation. Nor does it say we do not have the ability to work, work, work on our self-regulation of our mind to better take control of our reason. It does not say we cannot be a rational animal, that we have no reason and that we should follow anything in particular that is baked into us. Objectivism is a moral/ethical code, metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics. Evolutionary Psychology simply says evolutionary caused desires and more expansive amounts of our traits is true. It does not say we do not have reason or should not use it over our "evolved instincts and drives."

Nowhere in evolutionary psychology does any sociobiologist ever say we are not living beings that act to gain and keep values. In fact, quite the opposite it shows we do based on our human nature very much acquire through a mixture of biology, environment, and our ideas values which we live to fulfill. Humans like all animals do have needs and desires. We obviously do act to gain and keep those values. This is part of our human nature in which Sociobiology is completely agreeing with Objectivism on human nature in fact. It is not either pro or anti Objectivism though in nature; it just so happens it agrees with this Objectivism statement about human nature.

The fact that a lot of our values; our desires are part of our human nature and baked into us does not change the fact that we have them and work to gain or keep them. However, this is really beyond the point because Sociobiology or Evolutionary Psychology is descriptive it is not prescriptive. It does not tell you how you should or anyone else should live. It tells you nothing about what broader things you should believe about the Universe or existence. It does not touch on broader principles that philosophy talks about. It does not tell you how you obtain knowledge, anything else about the nature of the Universe, what ethics or morals you should act within and definitely does not prescribe any certain political system.

Nor does it tell you if acting on your longer term evolved psychology is good for the agent it evolved in within a new environment which it did not evolve in. The fact that one evolved a sex drive which might be different between the sexes does not say that men should act on their sex drive simply because they are horny. If one literally thinks you should only act on baked on instincts they would need to argue rape is OK because there was a built in drive for power or spreading your seed being acted on in the agent. Quite the opposite, some instincts and drives are destructive for all involved the agent and those the agent is acting on in complying with those drives.

Something being a gut feeling does not make it in accordance with reality and thus "rational." Many times to act in ones self-interest long term requires not acting on irrational drives based in our biological history. Evolutionary Psychology being true can make us realize what "tendencies" in our nature we should work to "not listen to" when doing so would be to not be living in the world as it is now. Our psychology evolved in a different time and a different place. Just because something is baked in does not make it good at all. Sociobiology or Evolutionary Psychology is descriptive of what is baked in, why we had it in the past and where it came from. It is not prescribing we have no way of regulating our instincts to make us more able to be a rational animal. Nor that reason is impotent at all.

"Politics, Liberty and Objectivism" (Part 2 of 2) by Onkar Ghate

"Politics, Liberty and Objectivism" (Part 2 of 2)

It’s more difficult than most people realize to properly conceptualize and understand different political views, terms, theories and groups. For instance, are socialism and fascism opposites? Do the terms “left” and “right” as used today in the U.S. define a political spectrum? What do liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism refer to? This talk summarizes some of the important questions to answer to form genuine political principles, and summarizes Objectivism’s own distinct approach to political philosophy.

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

"Government: Who Needs It" by Gregory Salmieri

"Government: Who Needs It"

This talk explores why Rand thinks that government is necessary to protect individual rights, and why this is its only proper function.

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

"Individual Rights: The Bridge Between Morality and Politics" by Onkar Ghate

"Individual Rights: The Bridge Between Morality and Politics"

The principle of “individual rights” forms a bridge between Rand’s moral theory and her political philosophy. If implemented as the basic principle of social organization, it enables us to subordinate might to right and to interact exclusively in voluntary relationships.

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

Objectivism is no excuse for dehumanization

This evening I watched a lecture on Objectivism from Gregory Salmieri named, "The Distinctly Human Form of Life." It was overall a good introduction to Objectivism, but, it was filled with allusions to things that I found downright disturbing to say the least. It was not Objectivism or anything Ms/Mrs. Rand said that was disturbing to me. It was the wording used to describe what a "human life was."

While I find myself agreeing that we need to use our Reason as a means of survival and all of the actual philosophical stuff. I disagreed highly with the idea that human's have so little baked into our natures as humans. We have a lot baked into us; including our means of survival Reason itself. We also have Evolved and baked into us that which we call Free Will as well it is an evolved trait. In addition, we have Ultimate Goals or Values very much baked into us as well.

Our species; both of the sexes is evolved to put their genitals in the other and spread their seed. This is a baked in value or goal to procreate. Some of us go a different direction which is how you get the Gay and Lesbians, but, that does not negate the baked in reaction of sexual activity. We also can see baked in differences in the sexes on other fronts too. Most of them around males being more thing oriented at birth and females more social oriented. This does not mean we are born with innate knowledge or innate ideas as such. In this way Gregory is right that we are a Blank Slate in the sense that one does not come out of the womb with the knowledge to understand anything whether innate or not.

However, to argue as he does that basically all we have baked into us is things like a pleasure and pain mechanism nothing else is absurd beyond belief. It is a total denial of any of the science we actually have about human nature. On top of this near the end his lecture becomes dark when asked about suicide from an audience member in the audience. He dehumanizes anyone that might be having issues of any kind that effect their thinking mechanisms. By saying that to live not as a Rational Animal every second of the day and if one ever is overwhelmed by their other mechanisms like emotion this is a "living death." Apparently this includes not having a career or being chronically single.

So, do all the single men and women need to go off and hang themselves if they cannot find a suitable partner? Should all of the people in between jobs due to issues outside of their control just find a gun or a knife and off themselves this instant, so, they are no longer in such a non-human condition? Should all Non-Atheists just go on a Mass Suicide and drink their own poisoned Kool-Aid for the sake of all of the Rational and Truly human animals on this planet? Should any man or woman that has bedded someone due to their hormones being totally overwhelming go jump off the nearest bridge right now?

Gregory. I agree that to live at all times and in all instances as the most Rational Animal that is possible within the type of brain you have at the given time is the morally proper thing. I also agree that Reason and being Rational is our means of survival. Evolutionary Psychology is correct, but, so, is the idea that our psychology as evolved is not necessarily suited for making the best life possible for us in the modern environment. I actually agreed with about 95% of the lecture, but, what kept coming back to me was the wording being used. As well as the idea that we have nothing baked into us.

Gregory; please stop using such dehumanizing language for people that either have issues or just whom do not understand the importance of Reason due to their ignorance. Not everyone that is a Whim Worshiper or Emotionalist is evil. Most them are just ignorant and even if they are highly ignorant living according to immoral ideas they do not deserve to suicide themselves. Most people are not philosophically grounded on this Earth. This does not mean they are not human nor that they should off themselves from their "living death." Even people immoral according to our philosophy as opposed to ignorant are not deserving of a self created end to their lives.

Taking Objectivism seriously is not an excuse to call people that are not living according to our philosophy not living a human life. They very much are human just like you and me. They do not deserve to be dehumanized and treated like they are of less value just because they and us might disagree on philosophical matters. Objectivism is not a dogma and it is not a cult. It is to use reality as its arbiter and reality shows homo-sapeins are humans even if they are living on nothing, but, their emotions as immoral and irrational as that would be it does not remove them from being human qua human.