This is a series of lectures I experimented with during 2004-2005 for a small group of
participants. I present it as is, with little editing, as a resource for you to enjoy.

The course was intended to try to explain the philosophy of Objectivism in a systematic
manner with education as the goal. Participants were assumed to have some familiarity with
the philosophy, and Ayn Rand's novels in particular.

Philosophy

What is philosophy?

I think the best place to start is with the very basic question of what exactly philosophy is all
about. What's the point? What's the purpose? Is there a structure to it? What are the options?
Do we have to pick any of them? And why study philosophy in the first place. There's a
bunch of questions here that need to be looked at.

By the way, if any of you haven't seen the Importance of Philosophy website
(http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/), you should definitely check it out.

So to start, Objectivism doesn't ask first "what's the right philosophy"? Instead, it looks to the
purpose it serves. It asks whether we need philosophy in the first place, and if so, what exactly
is that need. So that's what this thread is going to be about. What is philosophy?

I'll quote Rand:

A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice
about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your
philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical
deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions,
false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts
and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of
mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the
place where your mind's wings should have grown.

—Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It

(I recommend reading the title essay of Philosophy: Who Needs It)

The point is simple. In life we're constantly getting data from reality through our senses. Our
mind has to analyze the new information, and put it into perspective with the rest of our
knowledge. A lot of this is automatic. There's a huge amount of information and ideas that
you use for even simple tasks. Reading this post is a decent example. You see squiggly lines
on a white background, and you interpret them as letters. The letters from words, and refer to
concepts. You might even imagine a voice saying the words as you read them. You attribute a
consciousness to the author, and know that these words have a meaning. These words are
conveying ideas to you, so you have some understanding that they're meant to describe
something in reality, and you're accepting that it's possible to grasp the meaning. You're
assuming that the reality that I'm describing is the same reality you exist in. And on and on.

When you started reading, you might have only thought explicitly about what the words were
conveying, but you should be able to see that there's a lot more going on in your head. You
are reading the words, but it's happening within a context of your entire mental framework.
That means you may not explicitly focus on the fact that you're actually reading (of course
you are! But how often do you think about it?), or you may not explicitly think about the fact

that someone else (me) is trying to convey information. All of these ideas, and a lot more, are
not the specific thoughts you are focusing on, but they make up the background or framework.
You can focus on them if you want to, but most of the time you don't. You just accept the
framework as given.

But the most important point is that you always have some kind of framework, even if you're
not thinking about it or can readily identify it. You have some view of how the world works,
and what it consists of, and when you gather new data, you automatically view it from that
perspective. Think of it this way. Imagine you're watching a sci-fi movie, with lasers,
spaceships, and robots. In truth you know that the movie is fiction, and you may even believe
the science behind the movie is questionable. But as you watch it, you shift from your normal
day to day view of the world, and instead view the world of the movie as if it were real. For
the course of the movie, you accept that robots can talk and think, and that lasers can be shot
back and forth at slower than lightspeed. If the movie has some kind of villain, you accept
within the framework of the movie that he's evil.

This isn't exactly philosophy, but it should help you understand the concept of a mental
framework, or a worldview. When you see new facts develop, you integrate it into what you
already know about the world. In fact, you see the new facts from the perspective of your
worldview. An example is a magic trick. When the magician pulls a rabbit from the hat, you
view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in magic, and certainly doesn't
believe some entertainer of children is able to perform it and stays in that job! So when you
view the fact, you view it from the knowledge base that there must be a cause that you don't
see, but is there nonetheless.

wrote

article

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Fundamental_Premises.shtml

you

should check out. My basic point is that you interpret data from the perspective of your world
view. In other words, from your philosophy.

[A question that often comes up is what the difference between philosophy and science is.
It's a relevant question because philosophers in the past have categorized certain areas of
knowledge as philosophy, and at some point they have taken on the mantle of science. The
nature of matter might have previously included the four elements, but eventually become
atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. The nature of illness might have previously
been blamed on curses, demons, and immorality, whereas now we have germs, brain-
chemistry imbalances, and cancerous tissues.

So what is the difference between philosophy and science? Or is there a difference at all. If
today's philosophy is tomorrow's science, is there really a line we can draw? Is philosophy
really just a premature science without the details and rigor? Or is there some difference
that will always keep the two apart? What is it that divides these two ideas?

Without trying to answer that completely, it does help to look at some of the ideas of both,
and how we treat them. Scientific ideas are mostly based on facts and theories. It's
possible to have an incorrect theory, but you're able to find more and more information to

compare against it. Sometime the information violates the theory entirely, in which case
you reject it. Sometimes it requires a modification of the theory, or at least you can modify
the theory to cover it.

An example of this was the view that all the celestial bodies revolved around the earth. As
more information was introduced, the alleged mechanism of this revolution got
increasingly more complicated. Just imagine coming up with a mathematical formula that
describe the "orbit" of Mars around the Earth! Although this theory clung to life for a bit,
eventually a simpler theory that explained things better came along.

What we can see is that scientific ideas are based on evidence in the world. If the evidence
contradicts the theory, and a better explanation is found, it's pretty easy to abandon the
old theory. Differences between the two theories can be tested, and they will support one
or the other (or neither).

Many philosophical ideas don't work like that. The difference is that the belief is so
fundamental that all evidence is interpreted to support the theory. Let's look at some
examples.

The first example is free will vs. determinism. Do we make choices? Or are we simply
controlled by forces outside of ourselves? The free will advocate will see every decision
made as an example of free will. You selected that choice on your own. Your actions are
your responsibility. You have choice. Every action supports this view.

The determinist sees the opposite. Every action is caused by something outside. If you buy
a new car, the advertisements forced you to. If you hang out with your friends, peer
pressure made you. If you don't quit your job, society made you.

Every action is explained by these two views. There is no evidence you can provide that
will show that one is wrong and the other right. You might show that this view is logically
tied to other views that are less acceptable to the person, but all evidence is supportive of
the theories.

A more extreme example is the belief in an objective reality vs. a subjective reality. Again,
all evidence always supports either view. The believer in an objective reality who sees
something he thought was impossible will assume that either he's not understanding it
right, or that some other scientific belief is flawed. The subjectivist, when confronted with
anything, can just assume it's all a part of his unconscious desires.

How about ethics? Altruism up against rational self-interest. If altruism is the standard by
which you judge actions, then what evidence could contradict it? If you showed that
altruism was impractical, and actually led to pain in the end, it still wouldn't matter. It may
be a disaster in practice, but they'd still claim it was moral. In either case, you can't point
to an honest result of one of these standards and show the standard is bad because the
action was bad. The standard defines what's good and what's bad. All evidence will
support it.

And of course there's the view that art has an objective nature vs. the view that art is
whatever you put in a museum. If you throw some manure on a canvas, the objective side
will say it's not art, while the subjective side will say it is. You can't point to a piece of art
or non-art to convince them that one view is right or wrong.

So it should be clear now that there is at least one difference between philosophical ideas
and scientific ones. Scientific ones adjust themselves to evidence, and have the possibility
of being refuted. Philosophical ones adjust the evidence, or the conclusions you draw from
the evidence, to fit the beliefs.

There's a reason for that. Philosophical ideas are fundamental ideas. Philosophy is your
"world-view". It's the foundation on which you organize the rest of your ideas and
information. Everything is seen from that perspective. It's not that the person is being
dogmatic and refusing to see the facts. They do see them, and the facts align perfectly with
their own world-view.

I think this gives us a good start in explaining the difference between philosophy and
science. It's been said that philosophy deals with the most fundamental ideas, but this
gives us insight into what exactly that means. The ideas are foundational, and everything
else is placed within that framework.

This also means that philosophy can never be science. There will always be these
fundamental ideas that change the way you interpret evidence. Philosophy is not merely a
less rigorous science. It's a body of ideas of central importance to our lives. ]

So back to one of fundamental questions. Do we need philosophy? The answer is yes. But to
see it clearly, you'd have to ask what it meant not to have a philosophy. Imagine your mind is
entirely blank. When you see something, say a squirrel climbing a tree, you have no
framework in which you can understand it. The movement of the squirrel might catch your
eye, but it wouldn't mean anything to you. The tree might be brown, but you wouldn't see it as
a tree...just a brown object. In fact, it wouldn't even register as an object. Without a
worldview, the things you'd see couldn't be analyzed. You couldn't compare them to previous
things you had seen. No connections would be possible. The world would be chaos.

So yeah, you have a worldview. Everyone does. They have to. The fact that they don't study
it, or even recognize it, doesn't change their ultimate need for it. They can't escape the need
for it.

So now that we need it, what exactly is philosophy? Is it the worldview itself? Or is it only an
explicit recognition of the world view. Or does it just cover certain things. I think there's
going to be a lot of argument on this. The term philosophy is often used to mean your
worldview. But the study of philosophy is usually limited to these fundamental views of the
world. There are premises and principles that act as the support beams for your worldview.
These are the big building blocks that the rest of your knowledge is founded on, and they
shape the way you view the world. Some of these are far more fundamental and important to
your life. There are philosophical ideas that are peripheral and if you get them wrong, it

doesn't mean instant death. But some are so important that getting them wrong would end in
tragedy. For instance, one's views on art may limit the potential of your life, but if some of
your views on ethics are wrong, you won't survive to worry about it.

So that simple idea is that not all premises are created equal. Some are far more important.
But there's another idea to consider. Some people inflate their view of the importance of
certain premises. You may find that in many people's lives, politics plays a small role. But for
others, it's all consuming, and they'd be willing to throw away their ethics, epistemology, and
even metaphysics in order to believe what they want to believe about politics. A classic
example is the good-hearted, humanitarian Marxist, who after seeing the disaster that is
Communism in practice, decides that mankind is by nature evil, and they're not good enough
for Communism.

Big picture point is that there are a ton of ideas floating in your head, and some of them you
hold very dearly. Philosophy tries to analyze the major ones, and gives you a method of
analyzing the rest.

Now lets get to the question of why study philosophy in the first place? So we have a world
view. Everyone does. Why study the damn thing? Is it to sound cool at a party? Is it to smash
your opponents in arguments? Is it to attract members of the opposite sex? Well, those are all
great answers. But there are some others.

Since your philosophy, or worldview, is the means by which you evaluate everything, a flaw
in it can lead to disaster in every endeavor. Or it can just make them all a little harder. One
important point of my Fundamental Premises article I linked to above is that because you
interpret data according to your worldview, when you make mistakes it may become hidden
to you by your worldview. Bad results may seem inevitable, or you may interpret the cause
incorrectly. And getting feedback from reality might not help when you interpret the evidence
according to your philosophy. So that's a big reason to study philosophy. It effects every
aspect of your life, and if you make mistakes, it may doom you to failure and unhappiness.

And of course, without a knowledge of philosophy, you won't know if you're own worldview
is screwed up, inconsistent, or working against your goals. To understand how your
framework affects your life, you have to understand what the framework is. That's where
studying philosophy can help.

There are benefits to philosophy as well. Understanding how you understand the world
(epistemology) can help you in your career or everyday life. By being consciously aware of
what the rules of knowledge are, you can learn the skills to better grasp that knowledge, to
find and integrate new knowledge, and reach new complexities of understanding not available
to you before. It's like being able to do simple math in your head, and then being taught how
"carrying" and "borrowing" works in arithmetic. Suddenly you can do far more complicated
math, and by understanding it, you can move on to even high levels of knowledge. But since
epistemology is the basis of all knowledge, a sound understanding of it helps in every area.
And that's just one example. In ethics, you can learn to make better decisions, make them with
less effort, and see more options than you were able to before, as just one more example.

And of course, in a culture hostile to a rational philosophy, you can learn to defend yourself,
and help those around you that you value by giving them the words they need to defend what
they already believe is right.

Let's go over the method of this post one more time. We don't start off saying what's a good
philosophy, or what is Objectivism, or anything like that. We start with the basic human need
that drives all of the rest. We ask why we need philosophy in the first place. We establish that
we do need it by identifying the human need that it fulfills, and we know that it's so basic a
need that we can't live without it. Then by understanding what the need is, we can see what
we have available, and how it's used. We have a worldview, and we use it to comprehend the
world around us by analyzing everything within a framework. And from there, we can see that
if the framework has flaws, and it probably will, the flaws will cause problems. They'll
contradict the need that we've identified, and instead of making sense of the world, they'll
distort our view of the world.

By starting with the need, and developing the idea around it, we should be able to better limit
the field of inquiry, and have a basis by which we can evaluate further ideas. We can ask if
later ideas are really that important, and have a way of determining how central they are to
philosophy. And further more, we've already started along the path that Objectivism tries to
follow consistently. We start with reality, and we use it as a guide to judging our efforts and
ideas.

Structure of Philosophy

The last thread we discussed what philosophy is in the broadest sense. In this one, we'll talk
about how to break it up into smaller chunks, and the advantages and disadvantages of this
process.

Objectivism is broken up into 5 categories, or branches of philosophy. Metaphysics,
Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Esthetics. Like any process of categorizing, the point is to
divide it into more manageable pieces. Also, you can always have more or less divisions,
depending on what is appropriate. When we talked about philosophy in general, we didn't
bother to subdivide the category, but as we go further, the categories will help. It'll keep our
attention on similarities between some ideas, and how they differ from others.

The first three branches are the most basic questions of philosophy. Esthetics and Politics can
be considered subsections of the others. So let's first look at the three big ones. Metaphysics,
Epistemology, and Ethics.

Now remember we're trying to understand a world view here. One of the most basic questions
is, what's the nature of the world? Ignore for a moment that we have lives to live, or that we're
viewing the world. What is the world if we weren't around? If we die, will reality still exist?
What does it mean to exist? How do we explain how things change? All of these kinds of
questions revolve around what the world actually is. This is Metaphysics.

Objectivist Metaphysics discusses things like the Law of Identity, the nature of consciousness,
causality and change, what it means to exist or not exist, and those kind of things.

The next question is how do we know what reality is? Can we know what the world is? What
mechanisms would we use? Is there a right way and wrong way? That's the realm of
Epistemology, which deals with the philosophical ideas related to knowledge of reality.

Objectivist Epistemology deals with ideas like reason vs. faith, sense perception, the nature
and function of emotions, concept formation, and how our knowledge is organized,
integrated, and differentiated.

You might notice that even this distinction is not universally accepted. The idea that allows
Objectivism to claim the two are separate is the belief in an objective reality, meaning it exists
outside of our minds. If instead you believed that the world is a figment of our imagination,
then the nature of the world and how we know it wouldn't be different. It'd be whatever we
happen to imagine. But because we do accept the two as different, we break it into two
chunks. What is the world? And how do we know it?

That point should be obvious, but I'll repeat it in another form. The way you break up
philosophy is dependent on what the philosophy believes. Where we see two different
categories, some will see only one. So we talk about Objectivism being broken up into 5
different branches. But if we were to discuss another philosophy, it may not have the same
categories. Still, it's generally useful to discuss things in terms of these basic branches of
philosophy, even if you have to qualify it occasionally. That way, you get a good idea of
where the major differences are.

The last major category is ethics. It ultimately asks the question of how we should act. How
do we make choices, and are some better than others? What's required to say that one is better
than another. Should we follow moral rules? Or should we seek particular ends? What is good
and what is evil, or do they exist at all?

Objectivist ethics is an ethics of rational self-interest. It deals with ideas like standards of
value, moral principles, the nature of values, virtues, etc.

This categorization is particularly controversial. Often people talk about ethics vs. morality,
claiming that one is for how you deal with other people, while the other is what you do for
your self. For example, if you think helping other people is the definition of good, then you've
got one category for that kind of action and decision making. But you have a different way of
determining what actions you should do to help yourself. Objectivists reject this dual-system,
or any other. When you make choices, you have to make it between all of your options.
Having a self-interested choice and a other-interested choice doesn't tell you which of the two
you should do. Objectivism says you need a single decision making process that leads to a
single result. So this is a place where we may have less branches than other philosophies.

I talked earlier about how philosophy is inescapable. Everyone has one. Well, the same is true
for these branches as well. Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics are all necessary parts of
your world view. Everyone has some view of what the world is, and how they know it.

Everyone has some view of what the right course of action is, or how they should make
decisions. It may not be consistent or logical, it may be horribly flawed, but everyone has it.
So these categories are appropriate in that respect. They're universal, even if some people blur
the distinctions between them, or subdivide them ever further.

The last two branches are Politics and Esthetics. Politics is sometimes referred to as
Objectivist ethics in society. It's not true. This is along the lines of the morality/ethics split I
mentioned above, as if there are two standards you use, one when alone, the other when
surrounded by people.

Instead, politics is best summed up as the branch of philosophy that deals with the use of
force between men. That means it deals with the nature of force and coercion as well as the
nature and legitimacy of government. Objectivist Politics deals with ideas like force and
fraud, whether force is an initiation or retaliation, the need and role of government, the limits
of government, the legitimacy of self-defense, the Law, etc.

Politics is not a separate branch like the first three. In fact, it's an aspect of ethics. The
fundamental question is how do we act towards our fellow men in the context of the use of
force. But since the question is how do we act, it necessarily falls under ethics. Politics is a
subset of ethics. But the context of force is so important, and so different from other kinds of
choices, that it is granted special recognition as an entire branch. This is helped by the fact
that philosophies with wildly different ethics bases sometimes end up with very similar
politics. Altruists who think the poor should be helped at any costs might draw the line at
actually forcing people to do it, for instance. But it's important to remember that politics is a
part of ethics. We'll discuss this more in the future.

Esthetics (or Aesthetics) is the branch of philosophy that deals with nature of art, and man's
need for it. The crucial role it fulfills in man's life is actually epistemological, so you can
think of esthetics as a branch of epistemology. Esthetics deals with the question of whether art
provides anything useful to us, how does our conceptual (abstract) thinking work and what
problems can arise from it, what is a Sense of Life and how does art trigger a Sense of Life
response, etc. This is a greatly misunderstood branch of philosophy, and many people don't
even recognize it as being important. Even Objectivists, who are usually attracted to the
philosophy through Rand's fictional works, often ignore the power of art, and the source of
that power.

Now I mentioned that there are strengths and weaknesses to doing a subdivision. The truth is,
each branch has a lot of dependence on the other branches. In Epistemology, Objectivists
promote logic, which is a method of analyzing data in a non-contradictory way. But logic is
only appropriate if reality is in fact non-contradictory. So each branch is not some floating
field of information unrelated to the others. They're very well integrated. So you have to resist
the temptation to stay within the particular category and ignore the others.

Another problem is that some ideas span more than one of these branches. For instance, we
could ask ourselves how is it that we should organize our thoughts. This is a question that
can't be answered correctly outside of the context of ethics. In order to know how you should

organize your thoughts, you have to know what purpose you're trying to fulfill, and what are
the costs and benefits. For instance, you'll learn later in the concept formation discussion that
you can create an infinite number of concepts. But does that mean you should? Ethics gives
you the purpose and allows you to evaluate costs and benefits, but epistemology is also
needed. You can't tell what's a good course of action without evaluating whether it'll actually
satisfy its purpose.

Does that make sense? Another example would be in choosing your values. In some kind of
fantasy land, you might like to start from scratch, and evaluate every possibility, ensuring that
you're properly weighing every possible choice correct, and coming up with the optimal
solution. Ethics would tell you that this task would take a billion years, so you have to pick
something else. What's our minds method of organizing all of our choices? How do we do it
without thinking about every possibility that exists? At this point, epistemology comes in. It
gives us insight into how our minds work, how we retain the information that we do, and
make the choices that we do. We can use this information to then go and make better choices.

So this downside of the categories is that in real life some ideas straddle the categories. By
breaking it up, we run the risk of thinking within a single box. The categories are useful in
some contexts, but we have to know their limits.

And they are useful. A lot of confusion happens when someone hasn't properly distinguished
between metaphysics and epistemology. The two are different, and problems happen in each
branch. If you jumble the two, you won't be able to keep it clear whether you're talking about
what the world actually is, or what our knowledge of the world is. Similarly, ethics has to be
guided by what choices we're aware of, not by choices we aren't aware of, even if they exist.
That sounds simple, but when judging a choice after the fact, some people fall into that trap.

It also helps because in each branch, you can judge the idea by the criteria of the branch. In
ethics, you judge the ideas based on whether they're useful in helping you make choices.
Everything in ethics revolves around this, so it's important to note and refer to it. In
epistemology, it's all about knowledge of reality. You judge the ideas by whether they're
compatible with this benchmark. You get the idea.

Epistemology

The Themes of Epistemology

We're going to start the more detailed discussions in the area of Epistemology. Not only have
a few people mentioned it as their weak point of understanding, but it's the most crucial to
understand if you're going to get a strong grasp of the other areas of philosophy.

I call this thread The Themes of Epistemology because there are some broad patterns to
Epistemology you need to be aware of before going into more detailed analaysis. You need to
understand what are the goals of Epistemology, and the kinds of topics it covers.

The first thing to note is that it deals with knowledge about reality. This is the first major
theme. We need to be able to understand how our minds are able to make sense of reality, and
whether it's even reality that we're making sense of. A lot of philosophical discussion in
history centered on these kinds of questions. Are we directly aware of reality? If so, how does
it work? How much of our perceptions of the world a product of what we want to see, or what
we expect to see? Is knowledge automatic? Or is some knowledge automatic? Lots of tricky
questions.

Let's look a little more carefully at some of these, to see why they might be problems. What
happens if we're not directly connected to reality in any way? In other words, what happens if
our senses are flawed? What if they just present a picture of the world to us, but it's not
accurate? What if we only see a shadow of reality? The problem then is that you can't have
real knowledge about the world. Since you wouldn't have contact with the real world, your
conclusions would start off wrong, and never get better. You would be cut off from what's
real, and you'd have to fill in the gaps with your own imagination. Imagine you're blind, and
someone tells you about color. You could try to imagine, but it probably wouldn't be close to
accurate. And what if all of your life was like that?

We rely on our reasoning ability to analyze the information we get from the world. If we see a
dog chase a cat, we make a hypothesis about dogs chasing cats. But if our sensory information
was unreliable, or distorted, we couldn't really be sure about anything. And worse, we don't
know how big the distortion is. In that case, reason fails. If it's garbage you're feeding into the
system, it's garbage that'll come out no matter what means you use. The rational and the
irrational would be equally useful, in that neither would be useful at all.

So part of Epistemology is to show us how exactly we are connected to the world. The
validity of the senses is one major part of it. But even if you assume the senses are valid, at
some point our minds take over and start doing something with the data. The earlier you start,
the more room there is for error. Understanding where your mind takes the baton and starts
running with it is useful so you can understand the kinds of errors that are possible. I'll get
into these topics later, but the point is that epistemology is charged with discovering how
we're connected to reality.

In the same category, we have to answer how abstract ideas or concepts are related to reality.
In other words, after your mind has taken the data from your senses, how does it not lose
validity? If you meddle with things, abstract away details, compare and contrast, how is it that
you make sure that your conclusion still reflects reality? The consequences of this not being
true are pretty severe. If abstract thinking was necessarily invalid, we would have to live at a
perceptual level. You could trust only what you see in front of you, and generalization or
principles would be wrong.

Clearly that's not the case. Our abstract thinking can relate to reality, so that we do know that
we're making proper conclusions. But the question is how do we do it.

So the first theme is all about making sure our thinking is related to reality. That when we
make statements of knowledge, it's knowledge of reality. This is a huge part of epistemology,
and everything needs to be considered from this point of view.

The next theme to talk about it is the human form of knowledge. One particularly nasty
philosophical view is that if we can't know everything, we can't know anything at all. It leads
to Skepticism, which is the belief that we can't know anything. But surely we do know plenty
of things. You know how to drive to work, you know that 3+3 is 6, you know what your name
is, you know what your favorite TV show is, you know that force=mass x acceleration, etc.,
etc. So this "omniscience" standard of knowledge, which means you have to know everything
and be god and whatnot before you can believe anything, is clearly wrong. Instead of thinking
about knowledge and certainty in those terms, we need to identify them in human terms.

For instance, when measuring the length of a table, you don't have to measure it exactly
(whatever that would mean). You know that if you measure it to the nearest millimeter, that's
good enough. The point is you don't have to measure it to an infinite level of precision before
you can say anything about it. This is the kind of thing this theme is getting at. We have to
have a theory of knowledge that is attainable. Thinking in terms of some god-like being isn't
useful.

A third theme of epistemology is efficiency. Look at the world around you. There's a ton of
stuff going on. How do you remember each event, each detail, and everything else. There's
too much. You mind has to organize the data in a way that you don't have to keep you head
full of every last detail. Concept-formation is one such method. It creates a kind of mental
structure that holds an enormous amount of information, but in an easy to digest manner. For
instance, you've all seen lots of cars in your life. But if you want to describe the fact that they
all have 4 wheels, you can say "cars have four wheels". You don't have to say "My car has 4
wheels, your car has 4 wheels, that guys car has 4 wheels...". There are a number of examples
where our minds have to be more efficient. We can't afford to spend the time to list every last
detail. Of course, this connects with theme 1 from above. We can abstract these details, but
we have to have some assurance that our method of creating efficiency doesn't actually sever
our connection from reality.

These are the three big themes I wanted to bring to your attention, and they should help you
understand what exactly epistemology is all about. These are in general the problems that
need to be solved. From here we'll try to go into detail on how these are solved.

Sense Perception

This thread is going to talk about Perception, how our senses work, and some related topics.
David Kelley has written a book called the Evidence of the Senses, and I'll try to present some
of what he says. It's a real academic book, so unless you're really, really interested, don't
bother.

The reason we start with perception is that it's the source of all of our knowledge about
reality. It is our link to the real world. It's what keeps us honest. And because of that, it's also
been attacked viciously by the opponents of reason. If you can invalidate the senses, you
throw everyone into an imaginary world where anyone's thoughts or ideas are just as good as
anyone else's.

One crude argument against the senses is that we have the ability to hallucinate. Sometimes
we think we're seeing something when we're not. Dreams are one kind of example. Another is
if you're on some kind of drug or something. A related example is an illusion. You could have
illusions done by magicians. You could have optical illusions, like shoving a broom handle
into a pool of water and seeing that it looks bent. These are all given as evidence that our
senses are flawed.

There are a few Objectivist rebuttals to this kind of argument. The hallucination argument is
flawed for a couple reasons. First, how do they know it didn't really happen? They count on
the evidence of the senses in order to show that the hallucination was incorrect. For instance,
they could video tape you in a room while on some drug, and show you the evidence
afterwards that it didn't happen. But they have to rely on the senses in order to give some
semblance of sanity to this proof.

In general, hallucinations are caused by some kind of problem with the brain. It's similar to
dreams though. Would we take anyone seriously who thought his dreams were the same as
reality? Even children can tell the difference. But they count on you not to be able to explain
the difference.

Next, how do you know the broom handle didn't really bend? You know because of the
evidence of the senses. The people trying to invalidate them are counting on their validity to
make the point. That is enough to invalidate their argument. But we can go further. We know
the light waves are bent by refraction, and we can actually see this happening in a laboratory.
The people arguing against the validity of the senses know this, and even use this information
as part of their proof. They say that your perception is wrong. That you're mis-perceiving it.

Now this brings us to one of the main thrusts of Kelley's book. The senses provide us
information, but we interpret the information. The fact that we perceive the same thing in

different ways due to different context doesn't invalidate our senses. On the contrary, it gives
us more information.

Example. Say you see a chair in a well lit room. Now, say you turn down the light. It's true
that when you see the chair at the two different times, it looks different each time. But that
doesn't mean it is different, or that our perception is flawed. We see the object because our
eyes work in conjunction with the environment around us. If the light is dimmer, the chair
appears darker. But what do you expect? Those arguing against the senses seem to want a
view of the chair that doesn't matter which direction you're looking at it from, what the light
source is, or anything else.

In other words, they want a causeless perception of the world. They want to be connected to
the world, but not by any means. This is the source of the Objectivist complaint that they
damn our sight because we have eyes, or they damn our minds because we think.

Instead, the Objectivist view is a causal view of perception. We see because light waves
bounce off the chair, hit our eyes, are converted into electrical signals to the brain, and get
presented to our minds in some form. The Objectivist position is that this is an automatic
process. The events happen causally from the input. Our mind doesn't get involve until it
receives the signal.

And so we're presented with input from the world. We then have to process that input. For
instance, if you look at a glass of water, you're seeing some translutcent object, with another
translucent liquid inside. You do see it. But then your mind has to take over. The first thing
you do is try to figure out what it is you're looking at. You identify the object as a glass of
water. What you see is something, but what you recognize is a glass of water. That's where
your mind takes over, and that's the point where you can start making mistakes. Perception is
automatic and causal, and therefore reliable. Mistakes only happen when your brain starts
doing some analysis, and that starts when you try to recognize the object as something you
know.

So lets go back to the bent stick in the water. It appears to be bent, but that's not entirely
accurate. Really, it just appears as something. Your mind evaluates it as being bent, since it
looks kind of like that. But the conclusion is your own to make. The input is sent as is, and
you are in charge of evaluating it. The fact that a child might think it's bent is because they
haven't grasped, and integrated, how refraction modifies what they see.

Let's give another example. If you take a black and white picture of something, your senses
aren't flawed by not providing you with the correct colors. You know your seeing it correctly.
You adjust to the black and white by understanding how the causal connection to your brain
works. And that's an important part of it all. Those people who don't recognize it as a causal
chain of events won't try to see how different factors can change how you see something.
They'll insist the perception is flawed, and so we can't count on our one link to reality.

One more example, which is related. Imagine you're color blind. So you only see things in
black and white. Now, are your senses flawed? Are you seeing the world incorrectly? The

answer is no. The causal chain is still there, although it works different for you. You are still
connected to reality. You may not have easy access to some data, but that's not a flaw. That's
how everything is. Because there's a means of gaining knowledge, it is necessarily limited.
There's nothing wrong there. Just as real people don't have x-ray vision but they still view the
world fine, a color blind person is fine too.

Another kind of argument against perception is the view that our senses create a picture for
us, and then we view the picture. So if you look around you, it's like the room is a snapshot,
and so you're viewing it indirectly. This would be considered another blow to perception
because it means that you're not viewing the real world, only an image of it. And because it's
just an image, you don't know how close to real it is. But the Objectivist position works
against this too. Our senses don't create some kind of picture, like a snapshot, which we view.
The senses are a causal link to the outside world. When light hits our eyes (or soundwaves hit
our ears), it gets transmitted to our brains causally. There is no intermediate agent that creates
a false image. We view it directly. That might be a little confusing, since it's a long chain of
cause and effect. But the point is that it is a chain of cause and effect. The stimulus to our
nerves lead automatically to a reaction in our brains, which is our perception. It doesn't get
translated, as if there were some agent in between deciding what we see and what we don't
see. It's just presented. Look at it from the view of how it can go wrong. If I drew a sketch of
what I see and gave it to you, you'd have my version of things, which might not be accurate.
But if you see it for yourself, you don't have the middleman who picks and chooses what you
see. All of it gets to you, and since there's no selection process along the way, there's no room
for mistakes. I hope that makes sense.

Another interesting problem is the difference between sensations and perceptions. Sensations
are supposed to be vague results of our senses. For instance, you see a brownish color. Or you
see a large whitish shape. Perceptions are integrated. Like you would see a glass, or a book
cover, or a computer monitor, or something. Let's think art for a minute. To draw a glass of
water, you could sketch the shape and essential qualities. But a real glass has light reflecting
off of it, different shades of color, etc. Sensations, as far as sight goes, is just supposed to be a
bunch of colors of various brightness.

So which do we actually see? Sensations or perceptions? If we just see sensations, then our
minds are doing a whole lot of interpretive work on it afterwards. You'd have to guess that
these blobs are part of these other blobs, and when taken as a whole resemble something like
a glass of water. And that means more room for error. The perception school of thought is that
we don't see blobs of color, really. We see entities. We see a glass of water (recognizing it as
a glass of water is something else). So we see the shape of it, we see that there's different light
patterns in it, we see there are dropplets of water on it, etc. We see it not as some blurry set of
colors, but as an object. The explanation for this would be that the means of integrating the
light is an automatic process of our brains. In other words, we're hard-wired to integrate some
of the data. We see sharp linear contrasts of colors, and detect edges of an object. Our brains
take the data from two eyes, and put them together to give us depth perception. Etc.

Why does this matter? Well, I bring it up because there are some arguments on this topic, so
you should at least be familiar with it. But it's also related to the validity of the senses. Look
at the world around you. You see objects, right? When you look at a flower, it's not a blob of
colors which you untangle. You see it as a single object. The question is really how you get
there from blobby colors. If it's automatic, life is good. If it's a product of your mind, and
you're not aware of the process by which you do it, then it could be entirely wrong. Anytime
you make judgments, you have the possibility of error. The argument would be something
like "You see what you want to see. Sure your eyes transmit data to your brain, but then you
just interpret the data any old way you want to. You're just fooling yourself."

The last thing I want to hit on is that when I talk about senses, you probably think sight,
hearing, touch, and taste/smell. That's all true. You do gain information from the world that
way. But you also experience your inner world directly. You feel emotions. You experience
the process of thinking, of focusing, of wandering with your mind, etc. All of this is directly
accessible to you. So all of this can provide you with information you need in order to gain
knowledge. You can think of these as inner senses.

That's it on senses and perception. Feel free to ask questions as usual.

Induction and Deduction

In the previous section, we discussed Sense Perception as the source of all of our knowledge.
It's our tie to reality, and that's how we get raw data. But what do you do with raw data?

Induction is a process of taking specific data and generalizing it. It something we do all the
time, and you use the product of it constantly. For instance, if you see that the first car you
drive has turn signals, and you see another car, and it has turn signals, you can extrapolate and
guess that all of them do. If you see the sun rises in the morning, and falls in the evening, you
guess that it will continue to do that. You may later supplement this knowledge with a reason
behind it, but you start of seeing the results and you generalize the event.

The knowledge you get from induction is of a general sort. You go from the more specific to
the more general. This can be done with sensory data, but you can also do it with abstract
data. You can be aware of monarchies, democracies, dictatorships, and socialist states, and
based on similarities draw a wider conclusion, like that a government must have the consent
of the governed or they'll be overthrown.

Objectivism doesn't have a complete theory of induction of its own, so I'm going to describe
some of the general issues of induction. The first is what's sometimes called the problem of
induction. Basically when you generalize data, how do you know you're generalizing
correctly? Say you find a dog that chases cats. And then another. And then another. You may
conclude that all dogs chase cats. But it's not true. Some dogs don't chase cats. How do you
know if your generalization is correct? Is there a proper method? How certain should you be
of any particular generalization?

The first thing to do is look at what kind of information we have about generalizations. The
first thing is our sample size. If you know there are a billion dogs on the planet, how many
have you actually seen chase cats? 10? 100? 100? Or all 1 billion? Obviously if your sample
size is very small, you can't count on the generalization as much as if you've tested every dog.
But even testing them all doesn't guarantee success. A new dog might be born tomorrow that
doesn't chase cats, or there might be a dog you're not aware of that doesn't.

The next piece of information is the kind of data set we're using. Which is more useful in this
experiment, a set of 1000 random dogs, or a set of one million Pitt Bulls (a very aggressive
dog, for those of you who aren't familiar with them)? Obviously you can come to bad
conclusions by not having enough breadth in your sample set.

Another piece of information is the context. Do the dogs chase the cats when they're hungry,
protecting their young, bored, or what? If you test them only under certain circumstances, you
may come to the wrong conclusion.

Another way of improving your chances of being correct is finding an explanation for a
particular generalization. In other words, don't just measure whether dogs chase cats, but
come up with a hypothesis about why they would. The example of the sun rising in the
morning is better. You can, by sheer induction, guess that because it always has risen in the
morning, it will in the future. But when you grasp that it is the earth spinning on its axis, you
understand the cause of it. Of course, this information will be based on a whole other set of
inductions and deductions, but the fact that the generalization end up supporting each other is
useful. This is how most of our knowledge works.

Statistics is an entire science based on the needs of induction.

And so is Probability. Probability doesn't try to come up with a 100% correct generalization,
but instead tries to show the odds or rates of something happening. This is useful in a lot of
ways, and is a kind of induction. By processing the data, you can make statements about
classes of objects or result.

Concept-formation is another kind of induction, and that's an area where Rand has a unique
theory. I'll get into that later.

Another thing to note about induction is that you can disprove a generalization with one piece
of data. So when using induction, it's important to look for evidence that you might be wrong.
In other words, you can't just look for examples that are true. You need to look to see if you
can find any that are false. In the dog example, it would be bad to set up a website about dogs
that chase cats, and have people send in their stories. If you want to be scientific, you have to
seek out examples that would prove your theory wrong.

Of course, that's not easy to do. If you have a hypothesis about why the generalization seems
to hold up, it's not too hard to find something that goes against that hypothesis. But you may
still miss it. An example I learned growing up is seeing a set of numbers that include (among
others) {2, 8, 6, 4, 16, 12, 1042}. The test asked you to try to figure out what numbers are in
the data set, and you could guess other data points and see if they are. The trick is that if you

assume it's even numbers, you might try 20, 22, 1million, etc. But you need to test to see if
there's other numbers, like 1, 3, 9? It could be the set of natural numbers. And then you have
to test 0. And then -1, -2, -4. And if they happen to all fit in it, you have to try fractions or
decimals or whatever else. But if your theory of what the set contains is wrong, or in the more
general sense your theory behind a generalization is incorrect, you may not look for the right
kind of falsifying evidence.

There's a bit more to induction than this. When trying to find the cause of some result, there
may be more than one possible cause. You can learn to test whether any particular factor is
part of the cause. Or in places where there is more than one cause, you can figure out which is
the primary cause, or you can figure out what relationship between the causes produces the
effects. These are all inductive exercises, looking at data and trying to generalize it.

That should give you a pretty good idea of what induction is all about. Induction is one of
those areas that really upsets some philosophers.

Deduction is the opposite of induction. It goes from the general to the specific. If you say that
all apples are tasty, then you know that a particular apple is going to be tasty. If the general
principle is true, then you know that the conclusion is true. It's a 100% thing, and very
attractive.

The basic form of a deduction is a syllogism. There are a few types of these, but it's
something of the type "All A is B. A. Therefore B." There are also a lot of logical fallacies,
where things get a little confused, but the meaning is entirely wrong. For instance "All A is B.
B. Therefore A." The correct version is embodied in the saying "All men are mortal. Socrates
is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal". The flawed version would say that because Socrates
is a mortal, he must be a man. But that isn't true from the premises. He could be a horse for all
we know.

Yes, deduction gives you nice clean answers. If the premises are correct, and the logic is
performed correctly, the result must be correct. But you'll notice that in deduction, you have
some general principle (All A is B, or something of the sort). That means that deduction is
necessarily based on some generalized principle, which can only be attained through
induction. As I said, that upsets some philosophers, because they want clean answers that
have no chance of being proven wrong. One way some philosophers have tried to get around
this obstacle is by claiming that some general principles are known without induction. A
Priori knowledge is what they call it. Knowledge that comes before experience. If the general
principles could be automatic, then they wouldn't have to worry about the messy world of
induction.

You'll often hear Lindsay and I talk about Rationalists. Despite the name, it does not mean
people who are rational (although in some contexts, it's used that way). It means people who
think that deduction is the only means of gaining real knowledge, and consequently dismiss
induction. Of course, they can't dismiss the products of induction, or they'd have nothing to
deduce. So instead they ignore it.

Like most false dichotomies, there is another side that is completely flawed as well, but in a
different way. The Empiricists. In a general sense it's supposed to mean people who believes
knowledge comes from the sense. But like many descriptions, it misses the bigger point.
Empiricists discount deduction and abstraction. They uphold experience as the only source of
knowledge. I don't want to argue about how consistent they can be with this, since
consistency is typically not a trait of a bad philosophy, but imagine that someone wants to
jump off a bridge, and you tell him that he'll die. An Empiricist would then ask whether
anyone has died jumping off this bridge? And even if they have, it doesn't mean this guy will!

I talked more about induction than deduction, because most people are familiar with
deduction. Most books on logic will focus on deduction, with possibly a smaller section on
induction. David Kelley has one title "The Art of Reasoning". It's a general logic textbook,
and although he gives some Objectivist type example (role of government, for instance), it
isn't explicitly Objectivist, and he doesn't say which of the many theories of logic presented
does Objectivism accept. 4 of the 18 chapters are on induction.

If you want to go into more detail on any of these topics, let me know.

Integration

In the discussion on induction, I pointed out that one way of making a generalization more
reliable is to compare it to other knowledge you have. If they support each other, it can give
you more assurance that you've correctly generalized.

Integration is the method by which you take new ideas or facts and fit them in with the rest of
your knowledge. It means more than just accepting something as true. You actually have to tie
it in with the rest of your knowledge. The more you do so, the better integrated it is.

Integration mean connecting the different pieces of information you have. There are a lot of
kinds of integration, but the goal is simply to connect them into a large framework. A person
with an un-integrated mind would have a million different ideas, and be unable to see the
connections between them. That kind of mind would be scattered and fractured.

Let's take a simple example. You meet a girl. She talks to you about a variety of topics, but
seems to know quite a bit about medicine. She seems to be fairly wealthy. She gets called into
work fairly often. At this point you have a bunch of un-integrated facts about her. Now either
you can try to connect these thoughts yourself, or you wait until she gives you one final piece,
which is that she's a doctor. At that point, you don't continue to have isolated facts. You put
them all together. Doctors get paid well, and she's a doctor, so that explains her money.
Doctors are generally well-educated, and very educated in medicine. Two more facts that are
put together. Doctors are often on call in cases of emergency, so that explains the last fact. By
seeing these connections, and remembering them as connected, you've managed to integrate a
bit of information. You can continue to integrate, depending on what else you know.

There's other kinds of integration as well. You can integrate facts into principles or concepts.
The discussion of induction showed how to do this. But what wasn't mentioned at the time is

that the new general principles is an integration of the specific data used. You're tying all of
the information together.

Deduction is another method of integration. By taking general principles, you can show the
connection between different facts. By knowing that better fed children generally grow taller,
you can connect the fact that many countries with food problems also have a shorter
population.

One benefit to the process of integration is that it's easier to determine if there are
contradictions between what you already knew, and what you've just discovered. For instance,
you might hear on the TV that the US is rich because we have so much of the world's natural
resources. The person on the TV may be considered an expert, so you might think you have
some reason to at least tentatively accept the theory. But if you integrate it with other facts, it
might not fit in very well. For instance, if you know that the wealthiest countries also tend to
be the freest, you might realize that one of these factors must be more important than the
other. If you notice that Hong Kong is wealthy but has no natural resources, you might see a
contradiction. If you know that Africa is covered with resources and has fertile land as well,
then you'll really start thinking something is up.

So integration can be used to detect contradictions. But it can also help once you suspect there
is a contradiction. In this last example, you may believe you've found a contradiction between
the two theories, but you don't know which is right. If you haven't integrated facts in with
your theory of the US being a free nation as the source of its wealth, then when the TV
personality gives you some evidence for his theory, you may believe him. If the freedom
theory is left unintegrated in your mind with the rest of the data, it's ready to be pushed aside
with ease. The more of your mind that exists in the un-integrated state, the less defensible
your position will be. You'll be pushed around by every new theory, every new conversation,
and every new person you meet.

Another benefit to integration is that by connecting your knowledge, you have an easier time
knowing when it's useful information. If you leave it unconnected, a new idea that should
make you think about the principle might not. If you have a million things going on in your
head, it's less likely that you'll realize that you need that information. But by having well
integrated knowledge, it's much easier to find the relevant thought. Whatever thought the new
idea triggers will be connected with the important idea. So you may already know that in
theory a free market leads to prosperity. But when you hear about the natural resource theory
of wealth, it may not make you think of it. You may think of particularly wealthy countries,
and notice that they do have natural resources. But if you haven't connected their wealth with
freedom in the past, you might not stop to think along those lines.

Another benefit to integration is that by connecting the pieces of information, you're able to
discover principles you wouldn't ordinarily see. We've already seen how induction works. It
makes sense that if you're trying to look for connections between your knowledge, you're
more likely to go through the inductive process. If you memorize facts about how rich each
country is, leaving them unintegrated by not comparing or contrasting them, you may miss
any correlation between their wealth and their level of freedom. If you intentionally look to

see if there are any similarities, you're more likely to see this kind of connection. So
integration not only puts your knowledge into perspective, but it also increases your
knowledge. Very useful tool.

We've discussed how philosophy can be though of as a world view. When you discover new
principles of philosophy, it's important to try to integrate them into your own view of the
world. And that means connecting them to knowledge you already have, and analyzing any
problems you run into. These principles are wide-reaching, and are most useful to you if you
apply them to everything you can. You can't do it automatically or all at once, but you can
make a habit out of the process of integrating topics with the rest of what you know.

Standards of Evaluation

What's the difference between fact and opinion? A standard of evaluation. When someone
says "Sports team X scored the most points", it is a fact that everyone can go and verify.
When someone says "Sports team X is the best", it is opinion because it's unclear what the
standard is. Other people can't verify the results because there is no explicit method by which
you came up with the result.

A standard of evaluation is a standard that you can measure against. It brings objectivity to a
statement or idea by providing an explicit mechanism by which you make an evaluation. This
is crucial when making comparisons. A comparison without a standard doesn't convey
information. Without a standard of evaluation, statements about one would be unrelated to
statements about another. There would be nothing to connect them.

A logical implication of this is that the two things being compared must have something in
common. If they don't, there's no means by which they can be compared. Try comparing an
apple to justice, or algebra with dirt. Can't happen.

A frequent problem is embodied in the phrase "Comparing apples to oranges." When you
evaluate the two choices by different standards, the comparisons don't mean anything. If you
compare two people, and you say one is nice, but the other is attractive, which is the "best"?
We don't know. There isn't a proper comparison being made. If you want to compare them,
you have to look at the same attributes in both. That's your standard of evaluation.

There's another problem that occurs frequently. I call it the fallacy of the second standard. The
problem, essentially, is when you attempt to use more than one method of comparison at the
same time. I mean that in a different way from the "apples to oranges" problem above. This
one is when you use two different standards. For instance, for the sports teams, you could use
points scored and rebounds. Maybe you think they're both important. But the problem is that
if you use two different methods, you can end up with two different results. By points scored,
Team X is the best. By rebounds, Team Y is the best. Which is the better team? You can't say
at that point.

What happens if you say that one of the criteria is more important than the other. In other
words, one has priority over the other. Say points scored is the more important of the two. In

that case, the second criteria is almost useless. The answer always comes down to the first
criteria, and only in cases of a tie would you even consider the second criteria. So in essence
you're just picking one of the criteria over the other.

Another way to reconcile these problems would be to add some artificial weighting of the two
criteria. You could produce some mathematical function to calculate something called a "Best
Factor". Maybe points divided by 10 plus rebounds? But isn't it a bit arbitrary? You can
assign it, and say "by this criteria, Team X is the winner", but unless that function makes a lot
of sense, it's not going to be very useful.

A final way of reconciling the two standards is by picking a third standard that subsumes the
first two. We don't really care who scored the most points in a season, or who gets the most
rebounds, do we? What we really care about is who wins. And this is determined by a
combination of the two, and a lot more factors.

Why is this important? It is very relevant in ethics, where you're making choices all the time.
How do you choose between your different options? You have to have some standard by
which you compare them. And that means you have to be able to evaluate all of your actions
based on the same standard. In ethics, there's a concept called intrinsic values, which mean the
values exist in the object itself, regardless of it's relationship to you. But can you see the
consequence? If you're to choose between values, how do you compare these intrinsic values.
Is one greater than another? If not, you have no means of choosing. If one is better than the
other, what theory explains that? How do you compare values that have nothing in common?
You can't.

You'll find this happening a lot in ethical theories, but it's primarily an epistemological
problem. Without a single standard by which you compare things, you stop getting objective,
rational results. Instead, you end up with more than one possible result, and you're left picking
between them based on how you feel, which one sounds better, or any number of other
methods. But then it goes back to mere opinion, since you're no longer making statements of
fact.

Emotions

It's time to talk about emotions, and how they fit into the Objectivist theory of knowledge.
Where do they come from? How reliable are they? What can you do with them? What should
you do with them? Are some good and some bad?

Instead of writing it all over, I'll refer you to an article on ImportanceOfPhilosophy that
explains emotions pretty well:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Emotions.html

Love, hate, fear, envy. We all feel emotions. We've all experienced them. We know what

they are and how they affect us. The primary questions in

philosophy

is what causes them,

and how can they be used. The first answers the second.

Emotions are caused by one's thoughts. They are both triggered by one's thoughts and
programmed by one's thoughts. The triggering is straightforward to show. Hearing the

words

"rape", "murder", "death", or "genocide", etc., one experiences an emotion. Hearing

the same words in an unknown language, the words would be meaningless. One wouldn't

be able to make the mental connection between the sounds and the meaning of the words.
The emotions that one normally feels with respect to these words would not be present.

Only understanding can trigger an emotion.

A further example is that of a gunman. If someone burst into a room with a gun, the people
present would probably feel fear. However, if one didn't know what a gun was, you

wouldn't make the connection, and wouldn't experience the fear. The emotion is only
triggered when understanding of the situation is present.

We know that understanding triggers the emotion. This doesn't explain the particular

emotion, though. Why do we feel fear when we see the gunman, but joy when we see a
baby walk for the first time? The answer is the same as why understanding is required to

trigger the emotion. The emotion is a response to our understanding of the situation.
Emotions are triggered by particular beliefs. Fear is based on a belief that one's life is in

danger. Pleasure is experienced when one believes a

value

has been achieved. Each

emotion is a particular response to a certain kind of judgment.

Emotions are automated responses. When one sees the gunman, one doesn't need to

follow the full chain of thought to the judgment that causes the emotion. The emotion
occurs almost immediately after the gunman is seen. This is because of an automatized

judgment: the judgment that life is worth living and death is to be feared. The gunman
triggers this emotion when one realized that one's life is threatened. The evaluation of

whether life is good isn't made at that time. It was made before.

Since emotions are automatic responses to previous value judgments, it is possible
that the response is not proper. If the original judgment was faulty, the emotion will be

faulty as well. For instance, one may hate a stepfather because one believes him to be
trying to steal one's mother. Later in life, the emotion may still be triggered when one sees

the stepfather, even if one no longer believes the cause to be true anymore. Similarly, if the
original judgment no longer applies, neither does the emotion. Finally, it is possible to

trigger an emotion out of the original

context

. One may properly hate a man for his actions,

but another man with similarities may improperly trigger that same emotion.

Because emotions are automatic responses and thus fallible, they should not be taken at

face value. They should be compared to one's

reasoned thoughts

and if a conflict occurs,

one should attempt to resolve why the conflict exists. One should try to understand why

the emotion is being triggered and whether it is correct. It is possible that the emotion is
correct, and the reasoning false, due to an oversight. But the two should be resolved

carefully, and if the emotion is incorrect, one should attempt to change one's automatic

response.

With a proper understanding of how emotions are formed, it can be seen that they serve a

purpose for lightning fast value judgments which enable faster responses to time-critical
situations and, as automatic responses, they can give useful insights to complicated

problems. But emotions should never be taken at face value. They need to be validated

with reason to insure that they are proper.

Make sure you've read that.

Now, let me add a few things to this description. First, there's a phrase Rand used to describe
emotions. "Emotions are not tools of cognition". It's managed to confuse a bunch of
Objectivists, for no good reason. She means simply that you can't think with your emotions.
There's no way to analyze data by "feeling" your way to a solution. Emotions are not
cognitive. And just because you feel something, doesn't make it true. That should be obvious.
But some people take the phrase to mean that emotions are worthless, and you can't even
consider them as a rational person. It's not true. As the article mentions, if you feel something,
and think something else, it means that you have a conflict you need to resolve. You don't just
ignore one or the other. You can try to understand why you feel the way you do, and it may be
that your reasoning is wrong, and your emotion correct. Or somewhere in between.

The next thing to note is an implication of the fact that an emotion does not contain cognitive
information. You should never try defining something based on the emotions it generates.
Since you might feel an emotion for any number of reasons, you can't count on the emotion to
provide you with reliable information about the thing. I wrote this article on the topic:

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Value_Judgments_vs_Emotions.shtml

Objectivist epistemology rejects emotions as a form of cognition. In other words, you may
feel something, but that doesn’ t provide you with any knowledge except that you feel it.
For example, if you feel anger, it doesn’ t mean that someone has wronged you. If you feel
you should do something, it doesn’ t mean you should. Your feelings may provide you with
a clue that something needs to be examined more closely, but they aren’ t a substitute for
that rational examination.

To most familiar with Objectivist epistemology, this should be pretty obvious. Our
emotions are pre-programmed responses to value judgments. If they’ re programmed
wrongly, or a value is misunderstood, or something else triggered the emotion, or any
number of other problems come up, the results can be faulty. We then resort to reason to
analyze the situation and determine if the emotions were proper or improper.

An important implication of this idea is that you should never define a concept by an
emotion (except, obviously, when defining an emotion). This is necessary for the concept
to be useful cognitively. If you define a concept by a related emotion, you can’ t tell when
it’ s appropriate to use the concept.

My first example is the concept of 'self-esteem.' A common view of self-esteem is “Feeling
good about yourself.” The emotion is taken as a primary. What matters in this view is that
you have happy thoughts about yourself, not whether these emotions are proper. This
leads to a common practice in public schools where the teachers work desperately to not
hurt the feelings of students by telling them they’ re wrong, and so they throw objectivity
out the window.

A more rational definition would make it clear that the feeling associated with self-esteem
is a consequence of a healthy self-esteem. It would emphasize the objective needs of self-

esteem and a rational evaluation of yourself as being competent and worthy to deal with
life. The important point here is that the evaluation is the primary, and the emotional
response is secondary. This is true of all emotions. Since they're automated responses to
value-judgments, it’ s the value judgment itself that’ s crucial to our understanding.

A similar example can be found in the term 'happiness.' A typical understanding of
happiness focuses on the positive emotion. The facts of reality behind the value judgment
are consequently ignored. And then you start hearing things like "Happiness is a state of
mind," or "Well, who are we to judge, if it makes him happy?"

Again, a rational definition would need to center around what kind of value judgment is
being made, and what the criterion for the judgment is. For instance, you could say that
happiness is an evaluation of how your life is going, and it would be based on an objective
understanding of the requirements of life. And of course, the emotion would hopefully be a
consequence.

A third and final example is in the field of art. People often try to make judgments of art
based on the emotions that the art makes them feel. This might use the terms "uplifting" or
"powerful" or "inspiring" or "beautiful." In all of these cases, the defining characteristic is
the emotional response to the work of art.

The problem with this is that it doesn’ t address the cause of the emotions. If you happen
to see a painting that reminds you of your dog when growing up, you may respond
positively towards it, or with sorrow for the loss. But this is completely orthogonal to the
art qua art. It's an emotional response, but not based on the painting's nature or
purpose. Judging it by a resemblance to a dead dog tells you nothing about the quality of
the art itself.

A better analysis would again focus on the value judgments involved. It's not enough that
you feel inspired by a piece of art if you're trying to understand it. You need to understand
the purpose of art, the human needs that it fulfills, and how a particular piece satisfies
those needs.

In all cases discussing emotional responses, it's critical to examine the value judgments at
the root of those emotions. These are the elements that are analyzable by reason. It is the
value judgment that leads to knowledge and understanding, and not the existence or non-
existence of an emotional reaction.

Now it should be clear that emotions can provide some insights occasionally, when they
conflict with your reasoning. But this isn't the primary purpose of emotions, and in fact your
goal should be to try to make your emotions and reasoning coincide. So although this can be
useful if you do it right, it's not the point.

One major function emotions provide is a motivator for action and focus. Emotions are
motivators. They get you off the couch and make you act based on the value judgments in
question. If you feel fear, it motivates you to get out of harms way. If you feel anger, it
motivates you to change the conditions that are disrupting your happiness. If you feel excited,

it pushes you to accomplish your goals. If you feel romantic love, it stimulates you to try to
have a romantic relationship. But more than encouraging to act, they also encourage you to
focus on the situation. When you feel a strong emotion, it pushes you to throw your attention
at whatever the source is, so you can act appropriately.

Emotions are also a reward for a job well done. If you live a successful life, you feel
happiness. If you accomplish something great, you feel elated.

And of course, they're punishment for a job poorly done. You feel guilt when you've done
something immoral. You feel depressed when you fail. You feel sad when you lose values.

It's as a reward or a punishment that emotions can act as a barometer of your life. It doesn't
tell you what you did wrong or right, but it can indicate if things are going well for you, or
poorly.

Understanding how emotions act as a reward or punishment should show you why it's so
important to get your emotions sorted out. If you feel sad or guilty when you accomplish great
things, and pleasure when you screw up your life, how effective will you be at living? When
your motivators are turned against your life by punishing success or rewarding failure, then
you really have problems. And it goes without saying that the extent to which they're messed
up is the extent to which you'll have problems.

Objectivity

With a name like Objectivism, you knew we had to talk about objectivity eventually.

First, we need to hear about a common mistake. People often view objectivity as meaning
someone who doesn't have a stake in the matter. Someone who doesn't have a reason to favor
one side position or another. In other words, someone who is unbiased.

The reason behind this view is that people consider emotions to be a distorting influence on
one's reasoning ability. If you want a particular result, the emotions will cloud your judgment.
This is not the Objectivist position on emotions, as you might have guessed. Although you
may feel emotions, it's not that hard to think things through. You only start running into
problems if you try to use your emotions as cognitive tools. In other words, if you let your
emotions decide for you.

Instead of this unbiased view of objectivity, we use a very different meaning. Objectivity is
reality-oriented. It means holding reality as the standard of evaluation, and reason as your
method of analysis. So we seek the truth, and we know it's available to us even if we have an
emotional stake in the matter. We may need to work a little harder to stay objective, but
there's nothing preventing it.

This reality-orientation is what gives Objectivism its name. I've already mentioned that a
major theme of Objectivist epistemology is connecting knowledge to reality. This is done
explicitly through objectivity. So when we try to figure out whether something is true, we

look to reality, not just with whether it fits in with the rest of our ideas. The idea in science to
actually observe reality in order to test theories is an example of objectivity.

I've already discussed the idea of standards of evaluation. These are geared at bring
objectivity to a discussion. They set up a method of comparison, and then you can look to
reality to determine the facts. It redirects focus to reality.

There's not much to say about objectivity, but it's of enormous importance in practice.

Concepts

Ayn Rand wrote a series of articles called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and
eventually became a book. It was only ever designed as an introduction, not even covering
many aspects of epistemology. The one issue she thought was most critical was the nature of
concepts. And that's what we'll discuss on this thread. I'll do my best to try to convey the
essentials, but she did write a book on the topic. I'll also defer some of the sections of the
book for later so we can discuss them in more detail. This book is rich in ideas, and is worth
checking out for anyone really interested in epistemology.

So what is a concept? Well, we talked about induction already, and how we use it to take
individual examples of something and generalize it. Concepts are the result of one kind of
generalization. The goal is to take specific examples, find out that they're similar in some
way, and put them together into a kind of category. When you create this abstraction, you can
then use it to refer to all of the individual examples.

Let's take a simple example. Say I use the word 'book', as in I read a book the other day. Even
though you haven't seen the specific item I'm talking about, you know a few things from the
statement. You know it has a bunch of paper pages with writing on them. You know it
conveys some information. This is information true of every book, and you've seen books
before. That's why I'm able to talk about something you've never seen before, and yet you still
grasp what I'm talking about. That's abstract thinking for you.

Rand gives a file-folder analogy. Imagine you're categorizing papers and putting them into a
file cabinet. You would take all of the instances that fit under a specific category, and put
them in that file. You have some method for deciding whether a particular item should go into
that category, and so you define the category by that function. For instance, if you want to sort
words by their starting letter, you would put everything starting with 'A' into the 'A' file. In the
future, you could just refer to that file, since it contains every word that starts with 'A'. There
are general properties that are true of everything in that file (in this case, that they start with
A). But instead of going through them as a giant list, you could just say "The things in this
file". Or, if you want to name the file, you could say "The things in file 'A'". And if you ever
want to, you can look at each particular entry in the file.

That's the analogy, now lets look at another example. Take the word 'car'. Now imagine you're
creating this mental file. You put every 'car' into it that you ever seen, ever will see, or can
imagine. Now instead of talking about specific cars that you've seen, you can talk about the

while category. Since all of them have similar features (4 wheels, fuel tank, steering wheel,
multiple seats, windshield, etc.), you can discuss them in general. You can say that cars are
expensive. You can say that cars pollute the air. And you can also convey a lot of information
by saying referencing the category. By saying that you bought a car, we know all kinds of
things about the object you purchased.

Remember the themes of epistemology I talked about? One was efficiency. We can't talk
about every single car as if it were entirely different from every other one. By learning to
generalize, we become significantly more efficient in our thinking and communication.
Instead of trying to explain every detail of the car you purchased, you only have to point to it's
distinguishing features. It's red, and sporty. Convertible. Bad gas mileage. Has SOLO
emblazoned on the side. Whatever.

So we accomplish the efficiency need by using an abstraction. And it works great, as you
should be able to see. You use them all the time. And they're not just objects, either. Here's a
bunch of other concepts: jogging, fluffy, relationships, justice, introspection, quickly,
democracy, important, butterflies. You get the idea. When you aren't pointing at something,
you're probably using a concept.

So efficiency is good, but how about our connection to reality? That get's a little trickier.
When we combine this information into a concept, we're doing it based on the qualities they
have in common. What about all of the other qualities? If in our minds we think of these
particulars as being exactly the same as one another, we're distorting our view of reality.
We're integrating them into a single mental abstraction, but if to do that we end up losing
information about the world, then the result is no longer accurate. If the price for efficiency
was a disconnection from reality, it'd be a bad deal.

Fear not! We don't actually lose any of the details. Just like the file folder analogy, we're not
dismissing the individual instances, we're just putting them into a category. We still have
access to each individual instance. When we discuss the concept, we're discussing all of the
instances, which means each and every one of them. A concept always refers to all of it's
elements. There are some things they all have in common, and we can acknowledge those
similarities, but we don't ignore the differences either.

I'll next talk about concept formation, which explains in more detail exactly how concepts are
constructed. But as for this post, the point you should take away is that we live in a conceptual
world. The bulk of our thinking is in terms of concepts. It's not surprising that an entire book
is dedicated to this one aspect of epistemology.

Concept Formation

Key Concepts: Conceptual Common Denominator, Referents, Units, Measurement Omission,
Borderline Cases, Differentiation, Integration, Abstraction

It's time to go over exactly how a concept is formed. Understanding this process can help you
in several ways. First, by understanding how they are formed, you get a better idea of what a

concept is. By understanding the method, you can learn to perform it more efficiently, and
more accurately. You'll learn the kinds of mistakes that can happen if someone doesn't
construct a concept correctly. You'll be able to understand the limits and advantages of
conceptual thought.

For external reading material, I recommend Rand's own Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology. Also, David Kelley has a a very short booklet called "A Theory of
Abstraction" that develops some of the theory in more detail. You can probably get that at
TOC.

Let's define a few terms for later use. The first is the term "Unit". In the context of Concept
Formation, this term is supposed to designate a member of a larger class or category. For
instance, if you have the concept "Car", your own car could be considered a unit of that
category. The point is that you are identifying the particular thing as part of a larger class.
You're designating it as a member of a class.

There's also the term "referent", which means the thing you are referring to. In the example of
the "Car" concept, every car is a referent. When you talk about cars, you're not referring to
some abstract vision of only the essential qualities, you're referring to actual cars. Any of
them. Your car, my car, whatever. Referents are always important because ultimately that's
what you're referring to when you use a concept. You say "car", but you really mean any of
these specific cars. It's a recognition of the fact that you are referring to actual things.

Now let's look at the process. The first thing to note is that a concept is an abstraction of a
number of things. So the concept "table" is not referring to a specific table. It's referring to all
tables. But to form the concept, you need more than one table. So the first part of the process
is to identify things that are similar to each other in the same way. They have to have
something in common in order to integrate them in the form of a concept.

Let's take an example. Say you're going to create the concept "blue". You can take more than
one blue thing that exists in the world, and so integrate the different shades of blue into a
single concept. Say you take the sky, the color of a car, the ocean, blue ink from a pen, and
whatever else you want. The thing each of these has in common is it's color. They all have
color, and they're all similar. So it's possible to focus on this aspect of them, and form a
concept that integrates the different pieces.

There's a few issues here, first. We say that they're similar, but what does that mean? How is
one shade of blue similar to other shades of blue? To retain objectivity, we have to have some
method of knowing whether they're similar or not. Notice that this is obviously possible.
When I talk about blue objects, you know what I'm talking about. What's the method here?
How do we know if something is similar?

Well, related to being similar is being different. Similar actually means not very different. So
to form the concept blue, we don't just need blue objects. We need other colored objects as
well. We have to differentiate the blue ones from something else. By seeing that the blue ones
are not very different with respect to each other as they are with respect to other colors like

red, white, orange, green, and purple, we are able to place them in their own category. So the
ability to integrate referents based on their similarity is actually part of the differentiation
process. You'll notice that to see this kind of difference, you need two or more things that end
up being "similar", and at least one other thing that's "different". To see that the difference
between one shade of blue and another is not very big, it has to be compared to something that
has a very big difference, relatively.

In fact, without differentiation, you can't even be aware of something. Imagine you could only
see the color blue, and to further confuse the matter, it's uniform in shade. Everything shows
up as blue. You wouldn't even notice the blue because it's always the same. There's no other
color or other visual signals to let you differentiate it, which means you can't draw your
attention to it. If everything were the same color, you wouldn't have a concept for color. It's
the differences that make it possible to identify something because you're differentiating it
from the background. Identification requires differentiation.

Now we talked about noticing the differences between the different colors, as well as the
slighter differences between shades of the same color. How is this mental function
performed? The first thing to notice is that we're making a comparison based on a standard of
evaluation. When we say two things are similar and different from other things, we're saying
that we've compared them all according to a single standard. From the Standards Of
Evaluation thread, we know that we have to have a single standard that each thing can
compare against. This standard needs to be a commensurable characteristic, meaning all of the
things compared need to have this characteristic to some degree or another. This
commensurable standard is called the Conceptual Common Denominator by Rand. She
defines it as: "The characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which
man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."

The next thing to note is that this measurement is quantitative. There's a measurement that
you're making when you do the comparisons. That's why you know that some of the elements
are less different than the others. The function that your brain performs is very simple in the
end. It only has to measure quantitative data in relationship to other data. That means you
don't really need to know how similar two shades of blue are. You only need to know that by
contrasting their relative difference with other colors, the contrast is large.

One point of interest here is that some attributes are obviously easier to "measure" than
others. Color is pretty easy. So is length, density, volume, roughness, and a bunch of others.
But what about something like shape? How would you "measure" shape quantitatively? Well,
is an oval more similar to a circle or a square. Is a cone closer to a pyramid or a box? You can
kind of see that there are quantitative factors involve. You can measure area. You can
measure the distribution of the area. You can measure the angles of the edges. There's a
number of ways of comparing these individual factors. And you can even weigh the
importance. Rand points to the answers in mathematics. Geometry, Trigonometry, and
Calculus all deal with different shapes. You can represent shapes using a function. You can
then measure how different the other shapes are from that function. Other characteristics may
be even harder to understand how the measurement works, but that's partly a matter of

introspection. If you concentrate on how some attributes can be less different than others, it
makes it easier to see that there is a measurement going on.

As one final example of the difficulty of measurement, look at the characteristic "purpose".
Analyze a table, a desk, and an umbrella. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that the purpose of
the table and the desk are very similar, especially when compared to that of the umbrella.

Now back to the integration into a concept. We know that the different referents of a concept
have similar attributes, but the measurements are different. This is where the idea of
"measurement omission" comes into play. When we integrate the referents, we know that
there has to be some kind of measurement of the CCD. But when you actually form the
concept, the specific measurement doesn't matter. Take the color blue. Two things may be
blue, and we integrate them together. But the concept doesn't care how blue something is. The
specific details are ignored. Just as long as it's blue.

It also ignores the details unrelated to the CCD. If you're trying to form a concept of blue, you
don't care if the ocean is cold, or the car is fast, or anything else. Those details are ignored as
well. This is the process of abstraction. Abstraction, as defined by Rand, is "a selective mental
focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others". In the case of blue,
you're focusing on the color, and that's it. The other details you will mentally push aside. The
integration has nothing to do with them. You're focusing on only one aspect, and when you
form the concept blue, that's all that remains. The blue color. Of course, the referents still
exists, and you can refer to them, but it's only this aspect of them that you retain in conceptual
form.

To address one final issue, we talked about measuring differences and similarities. One
question that might pop up is how different do things need to be? Well, remember that the
difference is relative to other things. Something that looks blue in the context of a bunch of
red things may not look so blue when contrasted with green things. This creates something
called borderline cases. Here's an article explaining it in more detail:

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Borderlines.shtml

One of the topics in Objectivist epistemology is the method of concept-formation. It
discusses how it is we can take different entities in reality, and create a useful mental
abstraction. How do we go from individual trees to the concept 'tree'? How do we go from
instances of the color blue, to the concept 'blue'?

There's a bit to it, but this article will only discuss one key element. The process of
differentiation. The concept is a kind of categorization of instances. A concept is always the
combining of similar particulars into a group, and differentiating them from everything
else. In every concept, you have a way in which instances are similar to each other, and a
way in which they're different from everything else.

In fact, similar is a relative term. It's not just that two similar things have something in
common, but that they have something in common with respect to other things. Similar
things are really less different from each other than they are from everything else. If you

look similar to someone else, that means you look less different from the other than you
do from everyone else.

So concept formation always requires multiple instances. Those included in the concept,
and those excluded. The ones included are less different from each other than they are
from the excluded. Concept-formation always involves comparisons and relative
differences.

And that leads to the so-called 'problem' of borderline cases. A borderline case arises
when you have an instance that is very similar to those in a concept, but doesn't seem to
be quite right. The borderline case is less similar to the other instances in a conceptual
category as they are from one another, so it kind of sticks out. But it is different from
everything else in the same way as the instances in the concept. It sits on the border.

A common fallacy is made in trying to get around the borderline cases. The idea is, if you
can just construct a definition in the right way, you won't have borderline cases. You'd do
that by making your definition extremely specific and rigid. For instance, you could define
the color blue as a range of wavelengths.

The first problem is that you lose the notion of the relative nature of concepts. Take the
case of the strict definition of 'blue'. Now if you are in a parking lot full of green cars, and a
bluish-green car stands out as very 'blue' relative to the others, it might be called blue in
that context. If someone handed you the keys to the car, and said "It's the blue one", you
have to think outside of your petty definition. To stubbornly insist there is no blue car is to
drop the context the statement is in. Similarly, if the car was surrounded by very blue cars,
it would look an awful lot like green.

Another problem with this is that it goes against the method that you used to formulate
the concept in the first place. Even when it's possible to set such an exact standard, you
lose the notion of degrees. The concept formation was based on the degree of similarity
between the instances compared to everything else. Borderline cases still share that
similarity, but not to the same extent. But by trying to classify it as either-or, and having
rigid definition, you lose track of the similarity that does exist.

For instance, you can define 'scalding hot' to be specific temperature range, say that which
is necessary to boil water. If something is just under that particular temperature range, it
still shares a lot of attributes with the scalding hot temperature. It'll still burn you, for
instance. If someone says "watch yourself, that water is scalding hot", you don't smile
smugly and say "no it's not", dipping your hand in.

Objectivism doesn't try to avoid the borderline case. It's a natural byproduct of how we do
our thinking. Instead of fearing the borderline case, we recognize it for what it is. It's
similar to the other cases, but it has some big difference(s). Recognizing this fact allows us
to see the similarities and the differences better, and make a more accurate judgment
based on that knowledge.

So next time you feel tempted to make a borderline-proof definition, keep in mind that you

won't really benefit from it. By recognizing our method of formulating and retaining
concepts, you can better understand ideas.

And that's about it. Let's recap just to make sure we have it. We're identifying existents in
reality, and identifying them through a process of differentiation. We can see that some things
are similar or different in a particular context. This is done by a method of measurement along
a standard called the Conceptual Common Denominator. We then abstract from the individual
instances the characteristics of the CCD, and we omit the measurements. What's left is like a
thread that runs through every referent of the concept. This is the concept. Whether it's the
color blue, or length, or a car, or a person, or "running" or "intention" or any other concept,
the process is essentially the same. We've can use the abstracted information directly, instead
of referring to the specific characteristics of the referents. That means we can say 'blue'
instead of "the color of the sky", or 'car' instead of "my small automated vehicle with 4
wheels".

Keep in mind that this is an attempt to distill an entire book. There's more in it than what's
here. I'll get to some of it later. And some I may just miss. Like most of Rand's works, there's
usually a lot more buried beneath the surface.

But before closing this thread, let me just say a few things about why this is important.

First, you're always using concepts. When you argue over the definition of a word, you're
arguing over what is the nature of the concept. So understanding what a concept is can be
crucial to effective communication, teaching, and understanding. Also, knowing how a
concept is formed allows you to go straight to the source. Reality. You can observe the
referents yourself. You can do the abstraction yourself. Instead of being stuck arguing at an
abstract level, you can always tie your concepts to what you perceive in reality.

Another important point is the objectiveness involved in concept formation. Because you're
performing measurements along objective standards, it means that not only is communication
and understanding possible, but that it can be reproduced. And tying abstract thinking to
reality is a huge deal when it comes to the reliability of your mind. If you were unable to
show the connection between abstract ideas and reality, it would open the door to an argument
saying that abstract thinking is invalid. Now you have some means of answering this (or at
least a hint of the way to go).

Another point is that you don't ask too much from a concept. In the borderline article above,
and from the discussion of relative differences, you can see that your knowledge is always
based on a context. You can't hope or expect to have rigid concepts that somehow manage to
escape context. More on this later.

That's it. There's a bit more on the topic, but I'll break it off into later discussions.

Definitions and Words

We just discussed how concepts are formed. There's a little more to know about the topic. At
the point I ended the concept formation discussion, we had completed the process of
abstraction. But to retain the concept, it needs to go a little further.

The concept, once formed, needs to be able to be referenced in your mind, or through speech.
You have to assign it a symbol which you can later use. The symbol can be in many different
forms. We call that symbol a 'word'. You're reading lots of them. Usually words come in the
form of an auditory symbol. Read any word out loud, and that's what I mean. It can also be
visual. You're reading words on the page in a phonetic alphabet. You could also use sign
language. The specific way you do it doesn't matter, just so long as you name the concept.

Only by name the concept can you retain you. You keep track of it that way. The word
represents the concept. Without the word, you'd have to continuously reform the concept,
instead of just using it.

The other point of giving it a name is that you can refer to the concept in a direct way. By
giving it a symbol, you make the concept concrete. You allow it to be wielded with ease. You
no longer have to focus on the abstraction of the characteristics of the referents. Instead, you
give it a sort of mental form. The concept becomes a kind of thing, which you can discuss in a
similar way as you'd describe a real thing. So instead of saying "That car-thing right there
(pointing) ran fast", you can say "The car ran fast".

Another useful feature for a concept is a definition. Now usually people think of definitions
being tied to words. They are, but it's only indirectly because the word is a pointer to the
concept. The definition is really a description of the concept. The definition tries to explain
the concept by identifying what referents are a part of the concept. It can do this in a few
ways. One is that it identifies the characteristics used to form the concept. You could say that
blue is a color, which properly identifies what it is you're abstracting. And then you can say
it's the color of the ocean, letting them know which color you're referring to.

A definition usually has a genus and a differentia. The genus identifies the concept by putting
it into a slightly more general category. You can put the concept 'car' in to the category of
'motor vehicles'. The concept often shares many of the characteristics of the more general
category, so it's a good place to start. A differentia then explains the difference between the
concept and the other things in the genus. A car is different from a motorcycle because it has
4 wheels, and usually has a passenger seat or more. It's different from a truck in shape and
size.

This process of identifying the concept through a definition implies that context is important.
If you're differentiating one concept from all others, it matters which other concepts you've
formed. If you only know about cars and motorcycles, it's pretty easy to differentiate them. If
you add trucks, it's a little harder. Throw in Sport Utility Vehicles and Jeeps, and you start
having bigger problems. Since any level of classification is possible in forming a concept, the
definition will have to change accordingly.

A simple example of this is the definition of human. "Rational animal" is often used. The
animal part gives us a genus, which allows us to identify a number of characteristics about
humans (we're alive, we move around, we eat), and it differentiates us from other animals
(we're rational). But what happens if we find another animal that's rational. Say dolphins
evolve, or we meet an alien from space. We might have to further qualify the definition.

A definition aims to not only describe a particular concept, but describe it in essential terms.
We don't want to know every attribute of human beings. It doesn't matter that we have body
hair, we reproduce via male-female sexual intercourse, we wear clothes when it's cold, etc.
These things may all be true, and a lot more. But since we're trying to identify the concept, we
want to look at the most important attributes in the context of what we're talking about.
Usually the important attribute of man is that we are rational. But if you were doing medical
research, you might find that in your specific area there were more specific characteristics that
were important. You might then describe humans in a different way.

A definition not only identifies the referents of the concept, but it places them into the context
of your knowledge. When you have a genus and differentia, you are identifying not only the
concept, but how it relates to other concepts.

Important things here. First, a definition is a description of a concept, not a word. A word just
symbolizes a concept. The word itself is somewhat arbitrary. There may be some conventions
that make some words inappropriate for particular concepts (such as using a base that means
something entirely different, and adding a standard suffix). And that means, when discussing
the proper definition of a word, you really want to focus on the referents. When people start
arguing about definitions, they're usually ignoring the facts of reality that they're supposed to
be based on.

Not that you can't argue about what's the best definition for a concept. But if both parties are
discussing the same concept, there usually isn't too much of a problem. Practically speaking,
if they can convey the concept accurately, the definition is probably fine.

And finally, the definition describes the (contextually) most important attributes, in an attempt
to identify the concept properly. Understanding what the context is can help you to understand
which is the most important attributes. The importance of these attributes is epistemological,
not metaphysical. That means we prioritize them based on our needs in using them for
knowledge. Knowledge is the goal, and that means some attributes are going to be more
important to focus on.

Higher Levels of Abstraction

Let's continue on the theme of concepts. We've discussed the process of concept formation
already, and this is most easily seen when the referents are perceptual existents. That means
it's easiest when you can directly see what you're talking about. So length, color, and cars are
all easy examples. These are all concepts formed at the perceptual level. You see them out in
the world, and can point to them.

But you can also form abstractions from abstractions. We talked about 'blue', for instance. But
what about the concept 'color'? This is a more abstract concept. You don't see 'color' in the
world. You see specific colors. You see blue or green or red. Remember that to form the
concept we go through a process of differentiation. For a specific color like blue, we can
contrast it with other colors. But what do you contrast 'color' with? Certainly not the
individual colors, since they would all be encompassed by this larger concept. You probably
have to contrast it with things that aren't colors. Attributes would be the easiest thing. You
compare it to length, or volume, or flexibility, or whatever else. And as you might guess,
attribute is an even higher level of abstraction.

The first thing to note is that once you've formed concepts, there's two ways you can expand
your knowledge. You can either integrate concepts into higher level concepts, like the
example of color from above. Or you can subdivide concepts even further. Let's look at each
in a little more detail.

Integrating concepts into higher level concepts is similar to the process of integrating
perceptual data into concepts. You need a variety of things to compare and contrast, and you
need to see that some are more similar to each other than others. The color example is easy.
You can see how 'green' and 'blue' and 'red' are similar. So you can abstract from these
particular concepts, and form the higher level concept 'color'. But this process needs some
things that are different from the individual colors, but that's close enough to form the concept
color. That's complicated, so let's see how it might work.

Imagine you're contrasting 'blue', 'green', and 'red' with some very different concepts, like
'dogs', 'humans', and 'televisions'. You might notice that all of the specific colors are attributes
of entities, whereas the latter examples are all entities. If this is your data, you might form the
concept 'attribute' instead of 'color'. The issue here is the Conceptual Common Denominator.
The process of differentiation has to use some standard in order to see that these instances are
less different from each other than they are from the other things. In this example, the CCD
might be described as something like "Kind of existence". When you contrast, you'll see that
there's a difference between them, and the concept you form will be based on the difference.
In this case, it will be the difference between and attribute and an entity (or an attribute, and
everything else).

So to grasp the concept 'color', we need to differentiate the specific colors with something
more similar. It would probably have to be some visual attribute. We don't need to go into it.
The point is merely that concept formation requires this act of differentiation, and the CCD
used for the differentiation is going to be a defining attribute of the concept.

One thing that was implied in this discussion is that you can treat concepts as if they were
"mental entities". When you form a higher level concept, you do it by referring to the lower
level concepts themselves, not to their referents. You are actively focusing on the concept and
its defining attributes. You're abstracting from the already abstracted information. You're
taking the concept's CCD, and focusing on particular elements of it, abstracting the rest. In
other words, you're not trying to abstract from the referents of the concept, but from the

relationship of those referents within the concept. So when you take 'blue' and use it to form
'color', you're focusing on the characteristics of the referents of 'blue' that are used to from the
concept 'blue'. You're taking the fact that these colors fit within a spectrum of color, called
blue, and then integrating it with all of the other colors to form the concept 'color'.

There are other easy examples of this integration of concepts into higher level concepts. Rand
uses the concepts 'chair' and 'table' and 'couch', and from these you abstract to the concept
'furniture'. You can also do this with concepts like 'love', 'hate', and 'jealousy', and form the
concept 'emotion'. Or 'taco' and 'hamburger and 'steak' to form 'food'. And each of these
higher level concepts can be integrated even further. 'Emotion' and 'Concept' and 'Memory'
may be integrated into 'Mental Entities'. 'Furniture' and 'Toys' and 'Clothes' might become
'Merchandise'.

Let's go back now to the other way of expanding knowledge using concepts. You can
subdivide the concepts. For instance, you might have a concept called 'table'. But then you can
get more specific, noticing differences between things that were lumped together before.
'Table' might become 'Coffee Table', 'Dining Room Table', and 'Ping Pong Table'. This is
pretty straightforward. To form these concepts, you need more detailed understanding of the
referents of a concept, and then notice that there are differences among them. Of course, there
also has to be similarities. To form even these more narrow concepts, you have to obey the
rules of differentiation. You need to see that some are less different than others.

And again, the subdivision can happen at any level of concept. You can do it for things as
simple as colors, where you'd have things like 'off-white', and 'ocean blue' or whatever. But
you can also have it at much higher levels of abstraction. The concept 'government', for
instance, can be subdivided into 'democracy', 'theocracy', 'monarchy', etc.

Hierarchical Theory of Knowledge

One more on concepts! I know you love it!

We've already hinted at a lot of things along the way. First, we talked about concepts having a
genus and differentia as part of their definition. This rests on an interesting assumption. In
order to have a genus, the concept you're referring to must be part of a larger category. A
larger concept, actually.

So let's just jump right in. You have a bunch of concepts in your head. Part of the process of a
thorough integration of those ideas is to be able to see how the concepts interact with one
another. If you can tell what concept is the genus of your particular concept, you place it
within a framework in your mind that's organized by the logical relationships to other
concepts. You'd be able to see how it relates to the genus concept, and that it's a sub-divided
concept. You'd be able to see how it relates to the sibling concepts, which are the other
concepts under that genus. But this knowledge multiplies. If you know where the genus-
concept fits in with other concepts, you start seeing a kind of logical mapping.

Think of it like a family tree, that goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (suspension of
disbelief, please). At the top is the widest level of abstraction. It would be something like
"Everything". Skipping way down, you'd see high level concepts that could in turn be
subdivided into lower level concepts, and on down. At the bottom of the tree, you'd have the
concepts that are directly connect to reality through perception. These would be the perceptual
concepts. These are concepts formed entirely with perceptual data, and no conceptual data.

Pretty picture, aye? I'd like to quickly note that rationalists might see the same structure,
except for them you start at the top of the tree instead of the bottom. They take a few axioms,
and intend to deduce the rest of the world. Whereas we start with perceptual data, and abstract
on upwards.

In terms of integration, the picture is also useful. Imagine you have a concept, or a mini-tree
of concepts, but you don't know how to connect it to the rest of the tree. You may be missing
some conceptual link. If you identify the link, it will help you to further integrate your
thoughts.

Now for the sad news. The picture is flawed. It's kinda of useful at first, but it misses some
critical ideas. For instance, with this picture each concept has a set of siblings, and only one
set of parents (genus). In fact, it's not the case. Abstractions happen in a lot of ways, and a
particular concept can be used to form very different higher level concepts. For instance, you
might see a 'hamburger', and think it'll abstract to food. But it might also abstract to circular
objects. Or it might abstract to 'destination for cattle'. Or how about water? It might be a
requirement for human life, or what falls out of the sky, or simple chemical compositions, or
materials that melt at room temperature, or any number of other things.

So the chart is a little messier. No big deal. You're still able to integrate your knowledge
better by understanding the relationships between concepts.

There's something else to note as well. When you deal with perceptual data, the abstractions
are usually a little hard to describe without pointing. That's because the referents are not
concepts themselves. They're specific things. You have to say "My car is red" or "That leaf is
green".

But although they're harder to describe, they're usually clearer. That's because you can see
them directly. As your concepts become more abstract, it becomes more difficult to really
grasp them. The further you get from perceptual data, and consequently from directly dealing
with reality, the more likely it is that your understanding will be flawed. To reach very high
levels of abstraction, you need to make sure your basic concepts are very well understood. If
you abstract from a concept that you don't thoroughly understand, the result will be vague and
difficult to use. If you abstract again after that, you get more muddled. At the highest level,
you may not be able to use the information at all. Think about concepts like 'justice' or 'art' or
'government' or 'reason'. Each of these is a very high level of abstraction. You may have a
hard time coming up with a good definition for each. You may not even know their sub-
concepts.

This is what we call the hierarchical theory of knowledge. It just means that there are different
levels of abstraction, and the higher level ones are built off of the lower level ones. There are
a number of implications of this theory, as you can already see.

Reason vs. Faith

Sometimes the best way to understand a concept is to contrast it with others. There are some
aspects of reason that fit this description. Specifically, it's useful to contrast it with the
concept of faith.

Objectivists have a very clear and specific concept of faith. Faith is accepting an idea as true
without reason, or against reason. The first half of this is accepting an idea in spite of the fact
that there is no justified reason to believe it. Obviously someone can try to rationalize
anything, so we're not talking about just giving an excuse for a belief. We're talking about
actual evidence that leads to that particular belief. Let's take some examples.

A few years ago, the Heaven's Gate cult decided that a group of aliens were hiding behind a
comet, coming to free them from the turmoils of life on earth. All they needed to do to hitch a
ride was to prove that they were sincere in their belief. Ritual suicide was the method. This is
a wonderful example of faith. The first question, when someone suggests that you kill
yourself to go to heaven, should be "What evidence do you have for such a theory?". Faith
was required. Sure, the leader probably had told them about hearing voices in his head or
whatever else, but these aren't really reasons. He couldn't provide any evidence. They only
had his word, and that had to be weighed against all kinds of other possible explanations.

And that's the important part. Reason allows us to analyze the data and form the best possible
conclusion from it. When someone takes any random piece of data and latches on to it,
ignoring everything else, that also counts as faith. They're not forming their conclusions based
on the evidence available. They're basing it on what they want to believe.

Obviously religions are a good example of faith, since many actually preach the virtue of
faith. If you say you can't understand why God would let innocent people die, or children get
abused, or anything else, they say you're not supposed to understand. You're supposed to just
believe. Just take it on faith. Believe without reason, without evidence, and without
understanding.

The other half of faith is believing in something despite contrary evidence for it. One old
common belief was that central planning was an effective method of producing wealth. As the
evidence piled up against it, people continued to believe. They want to believe, and they just
refused to acknowledge the evidence. Country after country collapsed into famine and
horrible poverty, and the belief went on. The Soviet Union had to collapse before people
started having doubts, and there are plenty of hard-core believers still around. This is faith.

Contrast this with reason. Reason requires evidence to form a conclusion. It doesn't ignore or
evade known facts. It is a process by which you try to formulate a conclusion based on all of
the facts. It absolutely never accepts anything without reason for it.

Now this understanding of reason and faith are polar opposites. How about a middle ground
between the two? What if you have some supporting evidence for a theory, but there are
enough unknowns to make you seriously doubt if the conclusion is correct? The first point to
make here is that this is acknowledging that you don't have enough evidence is a product of
reason. Forming conclusions is not just weighing the known factors. We all learn in life that
you can also evaluate the quality of the information, and how complete it is. In other words,
there are reasons to not believe the evidence, and those reasons are based on your
understanding of how thorough the information needs to be.

Let's take an example. You find out a woman was murdered in New York City last night. You
find out someone you've never liked was also in NYC last night. Conclusion: he killed her!
Well, you probably don't believe that's enough information to make that judgment. The first
reason is that millions of other people could fit that description, so the evidence is equally
supportive of concluding someone else did it. You'd also have no evidence of motive, which
would explain why the murder happened. You may need better information on whether the
person had the opportunity as well.

The point is that although you may have some weak data to suggest a conclusion, you know
that there are a lot more factors that need to be understood before you can really be sure of it.
So these reasons against the conclusion are based on your knowledge of what it requires to
make a valid conclusion in this context. A more straightforward reason to reject it would be if
the guy had an alibi. But there are all kinds of indirect reasons. What if he was known to be a
moral person who you trusted? It may not directly contradict the conclusion, but you'd want a
stronger case.

Now again, what if the evidence is weak? Well, if the conclusion is the best you can come up
with, but still lacks sufficient backing, it would be wrong to accept the conclusion
wholeheartedly. In other words, reason would say that you can tentatively accept the
conclusion, for lack of a better one, but you should treat this "knowledge" as tentative. If you
accept it as strongly as you accept any other piece of knowledge, it would be unjustified.

So even in this case, faith and reason are never combined. If you accept the weak conclusion
as if it were absolutely true beyond any doubt, you'd be acting on faith, not reason. Your
belief wouldn't be justified by reason. If you accept it tentatively, you're not accepting it on
faith, but reason. And only to the extent that reason supports it.

Reason and faith are completely incompatible. Faith is the destroyer of reason. It takes
particular ideas and divorces them from reality and from reason. If you accept something on
faith, you are essentially saying that you will take it off of the table with regards to reason,
and treat it how you feel like treating it. Wherever faith goes, reason is pushed out.

But it's worse than that. If you accept an idea on faith, it can conflict with the ideas you've
accepted with reason. To make sense of it all, and to integrate the different ideas, you have to
reconcile those beliefs. That means either throwing out the ideas based on faith and sticking to
reason, or more likely throwing out reason and sticking with the faith.

Imagine you are analyzing an idea with reason and it conflicts with your faith. If you ignore
the contradiction and accept it anyway, you'll be undermining your reasoning process. Reason
requires a logical exploration of the data, weeding out any contradictions it finds. If you allow
the contradiction anyway, you'll have to suspend your reasoning ability. And that means you'll
be accepting the new idea, not on reason as it very well might be justified by, but on faith.
Faith grows, and reason gives ground.

If, on the other hand you don't ignore the contradiction, but accept it as valid, you'll use your
reasoning method on incorrect facts. Simple case is Creationism. If you accept that the
universe was created a few thousand years ago, as the bible says, then you have to start
interpreting actual facts in this light. When you see the dinosaur bones, you'll have to imagine
that god put them in the earth to trick everyone (he is mysterious, isn't he?).

So if faith and reason conflict, one must give way to the other. One must grow at the expense
of the other. They are in mortal combat for your soul.

Now what if they don't exactly conflict? What if you believe random things like the center of
Jupiter is made of chocolate pudding? Does that cause reason to retreat? Well, if ever the two
came into conflict, they would. It does have two direct side effects.

First, anything taken on faith is treated by your mind as a buffer zone against reason. If you
were to analyze it with reason, the ideas would die a quick death. So to maintain them, you
have to avoid using reason with them. This creates a sort of minefield in your head, where you
have to twist and turn your reasoning skills to avoid all of the sensitive spots. That's doesn't
work well in regards to efficiency.

Second, every idea taken on faith cannot be integrated with the rest of your knowledge. To
simply maintain all of the random ideas you can fill your head with, you'd have to devote a lot
of mental energy. And then you have the problem that those ideas may conflict with one
another. The end result is that your mind is cluttered with useless garbage, and you have to
compare every new idea with the thousand arbitrary ideas you've accepted on faith.

Hopefully this gives you some insight into why faith is bad, and consequently the advantages
of reason.

Logic

We've talked about Induction and Deduction before, which are two varieties of logic. It's
useful to discuss logic in the widest sense.

Rand defines logic as "the art of non-contradictory identification". The just means that logic is
concerned with eliminating contradictions. A contradiction is when two things can't both be
correct at the same time. In reality, if something can't happen, it doesn't. But in the world of
ideas, you may be mistaken about what can or can't happen, as well as whether they actually
did happen.

When you try to understand something, one of the key criteria to use is that the statement
doesn't contradict the rest of your knowledge. If it does, you have a problem and need to look
further. In reality, there are no contradictions. So for your knowledge to properly reflect
reality, it cannot contradict itself.

Logic is often seen in the form of logical deductions. Deductive syllogisms are true because if
they were not, there would be a contradiction. If "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a
man", then Socrates must be mortal. If he were not mortal, the conclusions would contradict
the premises. Non-contradiction is the essence of deductive logic. The rest of the rules of
logic are all derivative of this one central premise.

There are entire books written on the topic, so I won't go into too much detail except to point
out a few things to get you thinking in the right way.

First, you use logic all the time. Every act of identification and integration requires you to
look for contradictions. Imagine trying to integrate information that contradicted itself. If a
man saw his wife at a restaurant with another man, and then later she told him that she stayed
home all day, how would he integrate the knowledge? He can't accept both as valid. If he did,
it would imply that she can be at two places at once, and destroy all kinds of other knowledge.
He can say that he believes both to be true, but the contradiction will act like a roadblock in
his mind. It prevents integration from happening. It keeps the ideas disjoint. To resolve the
contradiction, he would need to identify the contradiction, and check his premises. He'd have
to figure out which is not true.

Sometimes when trying to understand a concept, contradictions are accepted. Obviously that's
not likely at the perceptual level where your getting your data from reality itself. But higher
level concepts can have contradictory elements. Communism, a system of control through
force, was often said to be peace loving. Family is often thought of as requiring love amongst
the members, and yet it's also known that family members know how to push your buttons.
There are all kinds of ways you can mis-integrate due to contradictions. For a concept, you try
to identify the key properties common to all of the referents for the sake of defining it and
understanding it more clearly. But these properties may be contradictory, as the examples
show. This could result in a few things. First, you may mean two different things when you
use the word, and the fact that they're not compatible is blurred by using the same name and
having some similarities. That means you'll end up equivocating between them, which just
means you go back and forth between the two concepts. A second kind of problem is that by
trying to integrate things that shouldn't be integrated, or at least not with along the lines you're
attempting to, your final understanding of the concept might be blurred. You'll have an
approximate understanding of what you're talking about, but not really. Any further
knowledge you base on this self-contradictory concept will also suffer from the same flaws.

Another point worth bringing up is the relationship between logic and objectivity. Logic is
concerned with not having contradictions. In this abstract sense, people can make their own
belief systems logical, in the sense that the different ideas don't contradict with one another.
But that's worthless unless the ideas are true. And that's why objectivity is so crucial.
Everything must be aimed at grasping reality, as in the real world. Constructing clean but

incorrect ideas of how the world works won't do you any good. Logic divorced from
objectivity is pointless. It's only because we're trying to grasp reality that logic is necessary. If
your ideas are divorced from reality, then the reason to be logical stops being valid.

Logic extends not just to our abstract ideas, but to the evidence of the senses. You use logic in
evaluating the data your receive from the outside world. Logic is concerned with making sure
your evaluations of that data conform to what you know about reality already. If your ideas
contradict what you see around you, there's a problem.

Logic can show whether there is a contradiction, but it doesn't say which element is incorrect.
In fact, both may be. To solve that, you have to check your premises, look to reality for more
evidence, and otherwise investigate.

Context, Context, Context

The Contextual Theory of Knowledge is one of the broadest ideas in Objectivism. It basically
says that all of our knowledge exists in a context. Context is the background in which
something is said. There's a huge amount of background information you assume in every
statements, and all of that information is then connected to more information. When you
identify something, you identify it within a given context.

Imagine you're going to write some simple idea down. Maybe it's something like "It's okay to
kill in self-defense." It's something you all understand, but how much of the context can you
identify? For instance, I'm talking about killing other human beings, not animals or plants. It
could be true for those as well, but it's not what I'm talking about. Also, when I say "it's
okay", that means that it's morally and legally okay. You have the concept "life" in there,
which you need to understand what death means. You have self-defense, which implies there
are other ways you can kill someone, and you have to know what the other ways are in order
to distinguish this one. Also, by the phrasing, I'm implying it's some universal rule or
principle, not just applicable to one person. What about other things? Self-defense assumes
that you can die yourself, so killing to prevent it is okay. Legally allowing something means
there's a government, a set of predetermined laws, and that it matters. And you can go on and
on with this all night if you want.

We've already seen one reason why this is true. When we form concepts, we don't form them
in a vacuum. It requires noticing similarities between things with a background of different
things. Every concept is formed in a context. You identify them in relation to other
knowledge. And the relationships don't go away. The concept blue continues to be identified
as different from red and yellow. In fact, the more information you have, the more
relationships you identify. Blue becomes differentiated from green, purple, orange, and every
other color.

Let's look at it another way. You've probably heard the phrase "The quote was taken out of
context". What it means is that they took some isolated set of words from someone, and

construed it to mean one thing when it was meant entirely different. It's a fallacy, and people
often look at the original text/speech in order to see what the context was exactly.

The point in that example is different from the fact that concepts are all relational. What it
says is that a statement is not meant to stand on its own. It's meant to be viewed in a context.
Imagine trying to write a book where you're not allowed to use more than one sentence. If you
use more than one sentence to convey an idea, each sentence could be viewed in isolation.
You wouldn't be able to build off of previous ideas. Think about what that would mean. If
every time you had to state something, you had to be explicit about every assumption, how
complex could your ideas be?

Here's a broad example of how a context-dropper, someone who ignore the context in which a
statement is made, can misunderstand you. When we define terms, it's usually in order to
make sure everyone is on the same wavelength. It's to make sure we know which concept
we're referring to. But if someone isn't familiar with a concept, you might have to explain it in
a bit of detail. You would give lots of examples, and try to refine the description. You would
say a lot of things about it. If someone decided to latch on any one sentence you pick as a
description, and assume it to be a definition, they would misunderstand everything. Say I'm
trying to explain what a concept is. I say it's a mental abstraction. That's not the definition,
though. I'm starting with the genus, and working towards a fuller description. But a context
dropper could point to that and say "It's a mental abstraction".

Context-dropping is a particularly annoying fallacy. It's a simple way to take someone else's
statement and twist it into something entirely different. No statement is made outside of some
context, and they can always change the context in which it was made. This is a mistake
similar to equivocation. Equivocation is when you use the same word for more than one
concept, and then you switch back and forth between the concepts. I identified one
equivocation in my Marriage article, where people use it to mean the legal status as well as a
kind of super positive relationship. And then they go on to attribute qualities of one concept to
another. If marriage is a good relationship that makes you happy, everyone should be forced
to get the legal status. This is similar to context dropping because the meaning behind the
words are not kept in focus, and instead the words themselves are. In context-dropping, you
take the words as if they were some kind of absolute truth that is devoid of context, when it
never is. Equivocation does the same by attributing qualities to the word, and not the
concepts, and then when the concept changes, pretending it applies to them too. As if the
words magically held on to meaning outside of what they're referring to.

Okay, so context-dropping is bad. Context-keeping is good? Yes. One example I want to give
is Rand's history of criticizing the United States. She did a lot of it, for a lot of very good
reasons. But Rand always made sure she kept her context clear. The US is the best, most
freest country on the planet. You can criticize every mistake it makes, but keep the context. It
is not a police state. It is not the most vile country on the planet. Keep the context clear.

If you say that something is good within a context, make sure you keep the context clear.
Don't say think that because you evaluated it as positive under certain conditions that it is

positive all the time. Evaluations happen within a context. Identify the context, and don't
move outside of it.

Context will come up more in the future, but hopefully this is a good start. You should walk
away knowing that all knowledge is contextual, and that keeping the context is a necessary
requirement for keeping the knowledge valid.

Metaphysics

Themes of Metaphysics

We're going to take a break now from Epistemology, and go into Metaphysics a little. Some
of the issues in Epistemology are so dependent on Metaphysics, it's important to get some of
the background information. In this thread, I just want to talk about Metaphysics in general.
What are the key issues? What kind of answers are we looking for?

One initial question you could ask is whether anything actually exists or not? Is the world
around us real, or is it just in our heads? And do we even have heads?

Before you can really discuss that, you have to know what it means to "exist" or not. What is
the nature of existence? What does it mean to exist? What does saying something exist mean?
What does something exist as? This is one of the most fundamental ideas in Metaphysics.
This is theme number one. We're concerned with the nature of existence itself. Remember that
we're not trying to prove that reality exists. Proof requires some standard of judgment, and
without reality, it would be impossible. Instead, we're trying to identify and explain reality, in
the widest sense.

Another important theme is the relationship between our minds and reality. What is
consciousness? How does it relate to reality? One view is that reality exists independent of
our consciousness, and we're merely aware of it. The other view is that reality is a product of
our minds. In other words, there's nothing out there, we just imagine there is.

This is not an epistemological issue, even though it deals with our minds and the connection
to reality. There is an epistemological believe that we are not connected to reality, or we are
through a broken medium (our senses are flawed). But that still accepts reality as being
something that exists external to our minds. Those who believe otherwise reject the very
existence of that reality. So the question isn't how we gain knowledge of reality. Instead we
ask the more basic question of whether there's a reality to gain knowledge of.

Related to these first two themes is the question of what way does consciousness exist? Even
if you say the external world doesn't exist, or is a figment of your imagination, does that mean
your imagination exists? Does your consciousness exist? And in what way?

There are some other metaphysical questions. For instance, what's the nature of change. We
see things change all of the time. How is it possible? What kind of existence allows change?
Does change itself follow rules? And if so, what rules? Is it related to causality?

These are the basic issues of Metaphysics. We're concerned not with how we gain knowledge,
or what we do with the knowledge, but with the very basic question of "what is?". We also
have to be wary of going beyond the scope of philosophy. Some philosophers tried deducing
the shape of the solar system, the atomic structure of the elements, and more from the comfort
of their arm chair. We're dealing with the most basic issues. The fundamental premises by
which everything else is built. The premises that give us the ability to analyze further
information.

More specifics to come.

Law of Identity

The Law of Identify is one of those very simple ideas that is so universal, it's difficult to
describe it in words. It is simply the fact that whatever exists, exists in a particular way.
Everything that exists has identity.

The identity of an existent is what the existent is. Let's look at an example, say a book. This
book in front of me has 535 pages. Each page is made of paper, and are all approximately the
same size. The pages have print on them. There's a cover, which is glossy and has a picture of
a person. And on and on. What I'm doing with each sentence is identifying the book. Through
perception and analysis, I'm able to determine what qualities the book has.

Identity is the fact that allows this process of identification. It simply the fact that the book
exists in a particular form, and that means we're able to figure out exactly what form it exists
in. So the concept of identity just states simply that a thing is what it is.

Why is this important? Well, fundamentally if it a thing didn't have an identity, it wouldn't be
anything at all. If reality were comprised of things that didn't have identity, it would be
unknowable. See how basic a concept this is? Everything has identity.

Let's look at some of the non-obvious examples of identity. First, there's your consciousness.
I'll explore this concept more, but just think of your own mind. It has identity. It might be
incredibly complex, but it exists in a particular way.

Even your ideas or concepts have identity. They don't exist in the material sense, but they
have certain qualities. Some of them may be vague and poorly grasped, but those are
characteristics too. The same goes for your emotions, or your moods, or even your whims. All
of these things are real, and have identity.

The Law of Identity has interesting consequences. Since everything exist in a particular way,
there are no contradictions. You can't be both A and not-A at the same time, and in the same
respect. If you have a quality, it exists as something, having specific attributes. Either it has
the attributes, or it doesn't. So you it can't be both. This is sometimes referred to as "The Law
of Excluded Middle".

Earlier I discussed the logic as the "art of non-contradictory identification". This
epistemological function is based on a metaphysical premise. That premise is the Law of
Identity.

In Objectivists circles, one major application of the Law of Identity is to reject the
Copenhagen model of Quantum Physics. You're probably somewhat familiar with it. Light
travels as a wave and a particle. You can't measure the velocity and the position at the same
time. These, and other ideas, are based on the idea that the light particles do not exist as

anything until they are detected. It exists as both a particle and a wave, and yet neither. It has
no specific attributes until the probability wave is collapsed. The point of all of this is that it
says that something that exists doesn't exist in a particular way. The Law of Identity rejects
this.

I'll add quickly that even the scientists who reject the Law of Identity in this case count on it
at the same time. They attribute multiple properties to a photon, allowing it to be any number
of things at the same time (or none at all, to be precise). But even then, they are attributing
qualities to it. They don't say that a light particle can be anything at all. They say it can be
several things at once. This attempt to constrain it is an implicit acceptance of the Law of
Identity.

Let me give another example. Again later I'll discuss the relationship between our minds and
the rest of reality. But one theory is that the world doesn't really exist, and is just a figment of
our imaginations. This isn't a complete rejection of reality. The view actually holds that our
minds our real, that our imaginations are real, and that they act in a particular way (creating
the rest of reality). Once again, they attribute qualities to these things, which relies on the Law
of Identity.

The Law of Identity is just another aspect of saying something exists. To say that something
exists, or is real, is to say that it exists in a particular form, with particular attributes. You can't
have existence without identity, or identity without existence. They're flip sides of the same
metaphysical fact. The two concepts are just a change of focus, not a change of topic.

Causality and Change

We discussed the Law of Identity, but there are two related issues that have confused people
in the past. First, it's fine to say that something exists in a particular way, but what happens
when it changes. For instance, your own mind has a particular identity, but as you learn new
things or direct your attention to something else, it's not the same anymore? Is it no longer the
same entity? Are you no longer who you were yesterday? And the other question is how do
things act and react? If I put a piece of paper into a fire, it act different from how an ice cube
acts. Why? What's the nature of cause and effect?

These two concepts are related to each other, and to the Law of Identity.

Let's start with cause and effect, since it's the broader issue. Causality is the Law of Identity
applied over time. What it means is that everything has an identity, and acts accordingly. If a
paper is lit on fire, it burns. If an ice cube is heated, it melts. For a particular cause, there is
only one effect possible for a particular entity. It's acting based on it's nature. As the ice cube
gets warmer, the molecules start vibrating and it changes to a liquid state. The piece of paper
is transformed through the chemical reaction brought on by intense heat, combining with
oxygen particles to make smoke and ash. Given a change to the entity, the effect is based on
the nature of the entity.

Sometimes this gets confused a bit. Think about bowling. You throw the ball down the aisle,
and it rolls towards the pins. When it hits the pin, the pin goes flying. It's tempting to say that
the bowling ball caused the pin to go flying. It's the normal way of discussing it. But in
reality, the bowling ball doesn't cause something to go flying...it just hits the pin with a lot of
momentum, and the pin reacts based on its own identity, and the change that's occurred. There
is a necessary interaction going on, and the interaction is between two entities. The nature of
the two entities, interacting together, produces the "effect" of the pin flying. Imagine if the
bowling ball were made of paper. Or if the pins were made of jello. The result would be far
different in either case.

Why is this important? Well, for one thing people often discuss cause and effect as if it were
between two actions. The first action is the impact of the bowling ball with the pin. That's
sometimes considered the cause. And the pin flying off in the opposite direction is considered
the effect. But this way of expressing it makes it sound as if there is a disembodied action (the
impact), which causes a second disembodied action (the pin flying). The focus needs to be on
the entities interacting according to their identity, since that is the real explanation for why the
reaction occurred.

It should be obvious that Change is just another aspect of Causality. An entity changes
according to its identity. It doesn't just magically become something else. It follows it's
identity over time. Imagine a clock with a battery. The clock hand spins around, hour after
hour. There is no need for an external event...the events are internal. The change happens
because you've set up the circuit and battery in an unstable state, and slowly it will correct
itself, draining energy into the clock hands as they spin around. It changes because of internal
causes. And we've already seen examples of change due to external conditions.

Let me just note that science is concerned with identification. It isn't primarily about
determining what causes a particular effect, or how to produce a particular effect. It's
concerned with identifying the specific nature of things. Part of this is understanding how it
will change over time, or how it will react in particular circumstances, but these are just part
of the identify of things. A science that rejects causality, or the Law of Identity, is not a
science at all. If you reject that identification is possible, then whatever you happen to call
science is meaningless.

Consciousness

One of the big metaphysical concepts is consciousness. It's something we experience and are
aware of directly. You know your own mind. You think, you feel, you focus, you remember,
and you perceive. It's so immediate that some philosophers started with an awareness of their
minds, and posited it as being primary. Reality you only know through your senses, but your
mind! You know that first hand!

Let's try to narrow down the discussion a bit first. Consciousness is an awareness of reality.
It's not a state, but a process. The process is one of perceiving the world, of identifying what
you see, of analyzing what you know, etc. When you're aware of your mind, you're aware of it

doing something. Whether it's solving a problem, or remembering something from you
childhood, or examining something in a microscope, you are aware of the actions.

Awareness requires something to be aware of. Once you've begun the process of awareness,
you can then focus on the actions that are involved in that awareness. But that's the second
step. The first thing you need to do is be aware of something. In other words, you can become
aware of your own awareness, but only after it exists. You have to initially be aware of
something else.

Imagine you start from scratch. You have the potential of a mind, but there's no data to
process. It sits inert. It's when outside information, i.e. reality, is presented to the mind that it
starts actively perceiving it. The process has started only at this point. Before that point, the
"mind" would be passive. It can't be aware of anything because there's nothing to be aware of,
including itself. It's only when the mind starts actively processing the information that it can
notice it's own actions, and focus on them.

This is the Objectivist reasoning for why a consciousness cannot exist without something to
be conscious of. That view is expressed by having a god which is the creator of reality. This
god is supposed to be some disembodied consciousness, and yet it has nothing to be conscious
of. What could that even mean? What is the nature of such a thing? It has no data to analyze,
no memories of data, no nothing. The answer, of course, is that god is beyond our
understanding. Of course. Since he's impossible by our understanding, that's the only way to
keep the dream alive.

So when we talk about a mind, we're really talking about the process. A mind doesn't exist in
a physical way, as something you can point to. It's a process of awareness. The process can
take many forms. It includes perception, remembering, abstracting, integrating, focusing, and
every other mental function.

The forms of awareness can be different as well. A man sees the world in a different way than
an animal, and I'm not talking about senses. A man integrates his knowledge, forms concepts,
becomes aware of his own mental processes, and so much more. At the lower end of animal
awareness you have little more than perception, and whatever it can retain in its head at the
moment. Although the differences may be large, the fact of awareness is the same.

Objective Reality

The phrase "objective reality" means that reality exists independent of our minds. The
description "objective" doesn't make a lot of sense on its own, but it does in comparison to the
competing theory of the relationship between consciousness and existence.

The Primacy of Consciousness is the view, which Objectivism rejects, that reality is a product
of consciousness. In this view, the world is a product of our minds, or the mind of some other
being (god). It doesn't exist in itself. It exists as a "figment of your imagination". Like a
concept or a memory, reality is said to exist as only a part of your mind. That means that you
can change reality by changing your mind. Or another possibility is that you gain knowledge

of reality by understanding yourself, or by introspecting. In either case, reality is said to not
have it's own existence, but be just a product of your mind. If your mind ever stopped, like if
you died, the world would die with you.

The Primacy of Existence, which is the Objectivist view, states that reality exists independent
of our minds. If we want something to happen, we can't just wish it to happen. We have to act.
If we want to gain knowledge about the world, we have to look out at the world and reason
with what we see. If your mind were to stop functioning as in death, reality would stay the
same. This is where the adjective "objective" comes into play in "objective reality". It means
that reality is not just a part of our minds, but exists as some outside fact that we can
reference.

There are many variations of the Primacy of Consciousness. One view would hold that your
mind is the only mind that exists, and everyone else is a product of your imagination. That's a
bit of a god-complex. Another view is that many minds exist, but we're ultimately
unconnected to them since there is no reality. Still another view is that there are multiple
minds, and that reality is a kind of group average of them. Each person has their own idea of
what reality should be, and somehow they're all resolved in a common hallucination. You
could spend hours coming up with other interesting and entirely useless alternatives.

The Primacy of Existence acts to remind us that the world is out there, and we have to act
accordingly. In epistemology, it means that we have to look to reality to understand it. If we're
mistaken about the nature of reality, then our actions won't work. Reality exists in a particular
way, and if we don't grasp it, we lose. In ethics, it highlights the fact that you can't just wish
for something, and you have to follow facts in order to get a desired result. If you act
inappropriately, you will suffer. If you grasp reality and act properly, you'll live the good life.
Some methods and actions are better than others when trying to achieve a goal. Some are just
wrong, and cannot produce it.

The Primacy of Existence is there to keep clear the relationship between our minds and
reality.

More Epistemology

Axiomatic Concepts

Going back to Epistemology now, I'm going to discuss a greatly misunderstood topic.
Axiomatic concepts, commonly referred to as the axioms.

For a quick intro about why they're misunderstood, and what the use of the axioms are, read
here:

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Axioms_Revisited.shtml

An important concept in the philosophy of Objectivism is that of axiomatic concepts.
Objectivism has three

axioms

, permeating through the entire philosophy: Existence,

Identity (or A is A), and Consciousness. The axioms have wide-reaching implications, and
their validity cannot be denied without contradiction.

Unfortunately, the axioms are very often misunderstood by Objectivists. In mathematics,
an "axiom" is often an initial premise accepted as fact, from which entire systems are
deduced. Objectivists often see these three axioms similarly. It is believed that all
knowledge can be reduced to these axioms, or that a deductive chain of reasoning from
these axioms is necessary to ensure certainty.

One of the reasons for this view of the axioms is that the only systematic representation of
Objectivism in book form is Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
(OPAR). In this book, the very first chapter, starting almost immediately, on page four,
discusses the axioms. The parallels to mathematics is visible. In order to be systematic,
you start with your initial axioms, and build the rest of the system through chains of
deductive reasoning. Whether intentionally or not, Peikoff has presented Objectivism as a
rationalistic philosophy by starting with axioms, rather than with reality itself, and trying
to work his way up from there.

Did Rand share this view of the centrality of these axioms? In her Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology(IOE), Rand waits until chapter 6 before she discusses axiomatic
concepts. That's out of eight chapters. Nearly the end. It appears she didn't think that
Objectivism was deduced from those axioms.

So what did she think about them? I strongly recommend a re-reading of her chapter in
IOE titled "Axiomatic Concepts."

To understand the real nature of the axioms, we need to know their purpose. Is it to be the
foundation of a deductive philosophy? No. Here is Rand's description:

"It is only man's consciousness, a consciousness capable of conceptual errors, that needs a
special identification of the directly given, to embrace and delimit the entire field of its
awareness-to delimit it from the void of unreality to which conceptual errors can lead.
Axiomatic concepts are epistemological guidelines. They sum up the essence of all human

cognition: that something exists of which I am conscious, I must discover its identity."

Further:

"This underscoring of primary facts is one of the crucial epistemological functions of
axiomatic concepts."

How about a translation? Rand uses the words "guidelines" and "underscoring of primary
facts." The axioms are not facts from which everything else is deduced. They are an
attempt to make explicit fundamental aspects of all human cognition. Why make them
explicit? To recognize their necessity, and to allow us to compare ideas to them, as a test
for contradiction.

You can think of the axioms as sanity checks on knowledge. By identifying fundamental
philosophical principles, we can ensure that we don't stray past their boundaries into the
world of absurdity. The axioms are guideposts marking off that "void of unreality to which
conceptual errors can lead." They don't prevent us from making mistakes, but they do save
us from straying into a conceptual world where anything goes and our reason is useless.

This is a very different view of axioms than the belief that they are first steps in a
deductive chain. In Rand's view, the axioms are fully consistent with a philosophy that
recognizes the essential need of induction in gaining knowledge.

Objectivism cannot be purely deductive. You can't prove that we have rights by starting
with "existence exists" and performing deductive steps from there. Nor can you hope to
take your knowledge and step backwards until you hit the axioms. We can't hope to
"prove" our knowledge by deducing it from axioms. Our knowledge is based on the world
around us. Any "proof" our knowledge needs must be found there.

Axioms are undeniable, which is very different from "self-evident". Objectivism rejects the
idea of something being "self-evident", which means "requiring no proof or explanation". A
self-evident idea is supposed to be true in itself, and so obvious that every instantly recognizes
it. It's often used to state something you're sure is right, but don't know how you know it or
came to learn it. It's sometimes uses to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is blind
to obvious facts.

No, axioms are not self-evident. They are undeniable though. Of course, you can deny them if
you want, but you can't do it logically. You can't deny them without contradicting yourself. In
order to deny an axiom, you have to use the axioms. They're necessary for any statement of
fact. Even the act of denying them requires an implicit acceptance of them. Let's look at the
individual axioms.

The first axiom is "Existence Exists". The wording is tricky and a little confusing, but the fact
that it points to is the most fundamental of facts. It's just stating that there are things that exist,
meaning that they're real. To grasp it more clearly, we have to examine the purpose of this
axiomatic concept. As I said in the article above, it acts as a guidepost to your thinking, telling
you when you've gone into La-La Land. If you think that nothing actually exists, your mind is

attempting to completely sever its ties to reality. If you think that there's something called
"nothing" that exists, then you invalidating the concept of existence. Does anyone make this
kind of mistake in real life? Not consistently. But some will argue that reality is just a figment
of our imaginations.

How does one go about denying this axiom? If you say it's not true, you're stating that there
exists something (an idea) which isn't true, and you're accepting that there is something that's
"true" which this axiom doesn't satisfy. The act of speaking the denial is an acknowledgement
that other people exist, or that you yourself exist, and that communication exists, etc. Every
thought and every action is an implicit acknowledgement of this axiom.

We've already discussed The Law of Identity, which is a second axiom. It basically states that
for something to exist, it has to exist in some specific way. This is axiomatic as well. If one
starts accepting that contradictions are possible, or that things can be A and not A at the same
time and in the same respect, they're no longer making any sense at all. They're dismissing all
of their knowledge by claiming that identity is impossible, and remember that knowledge is
identification. Past that guidepost leads to insanity. If one were to try to deny the Law of
Identity, they would have the same problems as above. How can you say something "is" false,
when there is no identity. How can you talk about anything at all if nothing has identity?

The last axiomatic concepts is "Consciousness". We've also discussed this idea already. What
would it mean to reject one's own awareness? They would be invalidating their own minds
completely. Obviously someone trying to argue against consciousness would have the
problem that they would be counting on your mind, as well as their own, to try to argue that
neither exists. It is lunacy.

The axioms are fundamental to every thought, statement, or action. They cannot be avoided.
They can only be contradicted. The goal of formulating the axioms is to bring to your fully
conscious mind the premises you hold in every aspect of your life.

There is the inevitable question of how you prove the axioms. The answer is that you can't.
Proof requires the axioms themselves. Without them, the concept of proof is meaningless.
Logic depends on Identity. Pointing depends on Existence. And both depend on awareness.

Remember my warnings from the article, though. The axioms are not some kind of deductive
starting point, where you deduce the rest of reality. Objectivism isn't that kind of philosophy.

Free Will and Volition

The debate between Free Will and Determinism has been raging forever. It's one of the
trickier issues, and there's little agreement on terms. You'll even find arguments about it on
Objectivist forums, although the official Objectivist position sides with Free Will. Let me do a
little introduction to the topic.

In the most general sense, Free Will is the theory that you have control over your choices. If
you decide between doing task A and task B, it's really you that's making the choice, just as it

seems to be. Determinism, on the other hand, says that you don't really have a choice at all. It
maintains that choice is an illusion, and that your actions are really out of your control.

This topic is important because morality rests on the idea of Free Will. If you don't actually
have a choice, then how can anyone blame you or praise you for your choices? Morality is a
tool for making choices, and if you have no choice, morality has no meaning.

One reason this is such a hotly contested issue is that the terms are used to describe wildly
different concepts. For instance, some people claim that our choices are not determined
because our brains are physical, and at the quantum level it's believed (by some) that things
only happen by probabilities. Leaving aside the Objectivist's usual complaint about such
theories violating the Law of Identity, that's still a terrible defense of Free Will, since it's
really just determinism. It still accepts that our choices are controlled by physical laws, but
claims the physical laws are random. So what? It just says we're controlled by a random
factor, not a deterministic one. This is the kind of confusion that makes the whole discussion
seem pointless.

It should be obvious to anyone who can introspect at all that they are making choices. They
make them all the time. What's the problem with that? The biggest problem that's difficult for
people to resolve is how this ability to choose can exist along side of the Law of Identity. If
our minds have identity, isn't our choices controlled by that identity? If our minds are a
function of our physical brains, and the brains obey the Laws of Physics, can we really say
we're making choices? After all, we had to make the choices we made because of who we are.

I can't possibly answer every question on this topic, since there are so many different views
on what each position stands for. I want to just say a few things. First, just because our minds
have identity doesn't mean we don't have the ability to choose. The problem here is a strange
view of the word choice. It's as if they've defined it to be impossible, since nothing could
result in choice. If it were within our control, and our mind had identity, they say it's
determined by that identity. If our mind doesn't have identity, there's equally no choice. This
should make us discard that view of choice, since it's incoherent.

Determinism amounts to the position that even though we think we're aware of our own
minds, it's all just an illusion. One view is that our brains function deterministically based on
chemistry and physics, and our consciousness is not real. Essentially, we're imagining our
own minds. The assumption here is that because our brains our physical, consciousness must
not be real. They can't reconcile the mental world with the physical world, and so they
abandon one. So this view of determinism would mean that our thinking is like a TV show,
where we are really just passively displayed the illusion of thinking, but we're tricked into
believing it's real.

One Objectivist argument against determinism is that it invalidates all knowledge. If you don't
really have any choices, then you can't choose between what's correct and what's incorrect. If
your mind is just an illusion, then you aren't really grasping (an action) reality. You just think
you are. If choices aren't real, then choosing to believe one thing vs. another is not real.
Determinism is incompatible with knowledge.

So the Objectivist position is that Free Will is essential correct. Not only that, but our
conscious mind is compatible with a physical body. And both are compatible with the Law of
Identity. We recognize that our actions can't be evaluated as if they were just random
chemical or physical reactions. It's our consciousness that allows us to make sense of the
world, and is the key to understanding our behavior. You can't look at men flying to the moon
in enormously complex systems and attribute it to mere chemical reactions. Only our
consciousness explains it. It is real, and our choices are real. The word choice then doesn't
mean being able to go against our identity. It means simply that our minds can weigh the
options and come to whatever decision they want to.

I'll have more to add shortly on the exact nature of Free Will. This should give you some info
for chewing.

Volition, Focus and Evasion

I mentioned that Objectivism supports the position of Free Will. There is still a question of
how this is manifested. Yes, we can choose between different actions, or different ideas, etc.,
but how? Is there a basic kind of choice?

The answer is volition. According to Objectivism, volition is the choice to focus or not to
focus, and it is the fundamental choice. It amounts to choosing to think or not to think. To
examine, or to not examine. Since consciousness is awareness, it's really a choice to be aware
or not. That's as fundamental as you get.

Volitional consciousness means that awareness is not automatic. Reason does not happen on
it's own. It's a process you must choose to enact. Concepts are not formed automatically. You
have to form them yourself. Your body doesn't make food on its own, you have to focus on
controlling it. Each of these involves a process of focusing on the task at hand. Without focus,
none of this is possible.

What happens when you don't focus? You're awareness becomes blurred. You don't analyze
the data that you see. You don't integrate it with the rest of your knowledge. You don't
compare it to what you know. Your mind essentially shuts down.

Along with this view of volition is the Objectivist view of "evasion". Evasion is the process of
avoiding focus on a particular issue. There are lots of ways of evading certain ideas. You can
just refuse to integrate, or recognize any contradictions. This is a blurring of the mind. You
can also divert your attention onto something else, letting you escape the need to focus on the
task at hand.

Evasion is the root of irrationality. It is the intentional blinding of yourself to knowledge. If
irrationality is going against your reason, it's only possible by refusing to see what you
already know. Imagine you feel like skipping work, even though you know you could lose
your job. The "solution" is to evade the knowledge that you could lose the job. Don't think
about it. Don't think about the consequences of your actions. If you start to drift in that

direction, refocus on something else. Think about the benefits you'll receive. That is the
process of evasion.

Evasion is anti-mind. It's an intentional attempt to negate your awareness.

When you argue with someone, you'll sometimes see that they intentionally steer the topic
away from a sensitive spot. Or they'll come up with some blanket excuse for not following
your line of reasoning. That's where silly sayings like "Who's to know?" or "That may be true
for you" come from. The goal of the evader is to not have to focus on the issue at hand. They
may have a bunch of reasons for not wanting to. They may be emotionally wedded to their
own ideas. They may not want the responsibility of having to act according to the new
knowledge. It might prove that they were wrong in the past, and they're afraid their self-
esteem will suffer. Or any number of other reasons.

There is a tendency among young Objectivists to shout "Evasion!" whenever there's a
disagreement. One thing to note is that integration doesn't happen automatically. Even if you
make a convincing argument, it's unlikely that they'll throw away their entire world view for
it. Even an honest person would have to spend time trying to figure out what other ideas he
has are wrong, or whether this one really is compatible with everything else he knows. So
expect it to take time. They may look for disagreements at first, but that's because they've got
their own mental sorting out to do. Obviously there appears to be contradictions with what
they know, so they will bring them up. Don't expect someone to make a fundamental change
to their world view in a matter of minutes.

Also, what happens when you seem to have contradictory evidence for something? Imagine
explaining that Capitalism is good to someone who thinks he has a bunch of theoretical
reasons against it. If you make a good argument, he cannot integrate without weeding out the
contradictory knowledge. And to do that, he may need more information than he has, or more
time to do the work. Don't mistake evasion with a slow process of reasoning and integration.
The fact that they don't try to integrate on the spot does not mean they don't want to integrate
their knowledge, but that the prerequisites for integration are not available.

Certainty

Certainty is a topic that confuses a lot of people because they use an unrealistic standard. The
typical problem is that they mean certain in a way that doesn't allow for any possibility of
being wrong. The typical line is that if you can't know everything, you can't know anything.
So as long as you don't know everything, you can't really be certain, can you? Obviously that
kind of standard would be impossible to meet unless you were omniscient. And we're not.

So what does it mean in human terms? Well, first we have different degrees of confidence in
our knowledge, right? We have varying amounts of evidence to support an idea. The evidence
comes in different forms, and we have to identify how important each piece of evidence is.
We do all of this in the full context of our knowledge up until that point. We decide how

strong the evidence is, and whether there are reasons to doubt the validity of the conclusion.
The stronger the claim, the more certain we are.

If we do think of it as a scale, what's on the high end? There's possible. There's probable. The
term "certainty" is usually designated to be the highest level of confidence you can have. It
amounts to saying that you have no (rational) doubts about it. Certainty is when all of the
evidence available supports a particular conclusion, and no other conclusion can be found.
Obviously if the data supports more than one theory, you wouldn't have grounds to be certain
one is true. Similarly if the data contradicts the conclusion, you'd have a serious reason to
doubt it.

Sometimes Objectivists call this "contextual certainty". The point is that it isn't some kind of
certainty that is absolute, that ignores all future evidence, and has no possibility of being
correct. Instead, it holds that you can be certain within the context of your knowledge. You
treat the conclusion as if it were true, and you act according to it. If the context changes, your
certainty can change as well. But until you find some reason to doubt the conclusion, you
accept it as true and move on.

The contextual part of this is very important. You're not evaluating the validity of a statement
in isolation from the rest of your knowledge. You're putting it in with everything else you
know, and deciding that it is the only conclusion that fits the bill.

When people reject the possibility of certainty, they are forced to reject the possibility of
knowledge as well. For them, you can never be sure what the relationship is between your
knowledge and reality, so there's no reason to accept any of it as valid. The logical conclusion
is an epistemological theory called Skepticism. Skepticism rejects the possibility of
knowledge. It says simply that because we don't know everything, we can't know anything at
all. In practice, this means every statement is equally worthless. Of course, nobody can
practice this theory consistently, so instead it's used as a tool of evasion.

Some people have tried to take a soft-skepticism point of view by talking about "probabilistic
certainty". It amounts to giving probabilities to your knowledge, and then when you form a
conclusion based on it, you take into consideration the probabilities. So if you believe
something at an 80% level, and then you base some conclusion on it, the conclusion would be
no more than 80%. Something along those lines. Bayes Reasoning is a new and popular way
of doing the math. But the problem is, what do those numbers mean? Where do you get them?
Either you have knowledge of the world, or you don't. You can't have both. If your knowledge
is not connected to reality, then how can you judge by how much it's off by? That would
require knowing about reality. Probabilistic certainty is just another way of arguing against
certainty.

Why would people argue against certainty? Some do it because they want an "out". If
confronted with a contradiction or an ethical failing, they want to be able to point to the
probability and say "We can't be sure!". Some do it because they think people with strong
convictions are dangerous, and only doubt and uncertainty can keep people peaceful. Rand

argued against this last one by saying that when a thug comes up and declares his own
certainty, you can't beat him by expressing your lack of certainty.

Ethics

Themes of Ethics

It's time to move on to the third major branch of philosophy. The field of morality, or ethics.
Again, it's useful to get a big picture view of ethics, and describe some of the themes that run
through the body of knowledge.

The first question of ethics, which is the starting point of it all, is why do we need ethics in the
first place? Can we live without it? The answer Objectivism gives is that we need a code of
values in order to make our decisions. Since we're beings of volitional consciousness, we
don't have an automatic means of knowledge. We don't have an automatic way of deciding
what to do. We have to figure out a way of making choices. And that's the role ethics fills.

We saw in the discussion of standards of evaluation that if you want to compare different
things, you have to find a single standard by which to contrast them. The same is true in
ethics. You have an almost unlimited amount of choices you can make, and the fundamental
question is how do you compare them and select one. We'll find that every ethical system has
a Standard of Value, which is the measurement used to compare and contrast the ideas. The
process of evaluation is one major theme of ethics.

We also learned in the epistemology section that our mind needs to be able to use abstract
information in order to function efficiency. In ethics, we deal in ethical principles, which are
wide-reaching abstractions that give us information on how to act. Included in this area is the
concept of "virtues". This theme can be identified as providing an efficient method of acting
in accordance with an ethical theory.

Another theme that comes up is the concept of context in ethics. Often ethical views are
formed in contexts that are not particularly relevant to human life. Some of these, called
"lifeboat scenarios" after a scenario where you're stuck in a lifeboat and you have to kill/eat
your fellow passengers in order to survive, have almost no practical value. And the principles
formed under these contexts are not the slightest bit valid in a different context (where eating
your neighbors is not a good thing). We'll also see how actions are evaluated in a specific
context.

Since life is the standard of value under the Objectivist ethics, we'll have to contrast different
views of what life. We'll also find, as we go, that we need to be able to have a more integrated
view of what life is. If you really want to compare and contrast all of your different choices,
you need to make sure your standard of comparison is very clear in your mind. We'll see as
another theme that there's more to it than meets the eye.

Finally, we'll find that putting an ethical theory into practice isn't easy or automatic. We'll
have to examine the process of shifting one's moral premises and values so that they align
with your rational judgment of what they should be. This theme will include how we go about
automating certain behavior, and what a transition to a different ethics must involve.

Values

Note: For Rand's detailed explanation of her ethics, see "The Objectivist Ethics" in Virtue of
Selfishness.

Value is the central concept in ethics. Everything else revolves around it. Ethics is a person's
means of choosing between actions. Actions, on the other hand, are aimed at accomplishing
something. That something is called a value. Rand defined a value as "that which you act to
gain and/or keep". It's what you're trying to accomplish when you do something. That can be
acquiring some physical good, like a steak or a new car. It can also mean something like
pleasure or improved physical fitness. It can be a friendship, or romantic interest. It can be the
development of a new skill. And to give an example of keeping something, putting out a fire
to protect your house is an example of acting in order to keep it. Anything you act to gain
and/or keep is a value, in the widest sense of the term.

That's why values are the central concept in ethics. Ethics is fundamentally about choosing
between possible goals/values. Ethics isn't concerned primarily with how to accomplish a
particular value, such as how to cook a nice meal. It's concerned with choosing between
cooking that nice meal and every other action you could be taking. Ethics is all about choice.
And that means choosing between possible values.

We've discussed values before in the section on emotions. In that section, we described how a
value-judgment, the evaluation of whether something is good or bad, is the root of an
emotional reaction. The value-judgment is formed through a process whereby you evaluate
whether something is good or bad. The method of evaluation is something we'll get into later,
but the result is what matters as far as the emotions go. That means even if you evaluate
something incorrectly, the value-judgment will still lead to future emotional reactions.

When you evaluate something as positive, one kind of emotional response will be desire. I
bring this up so that we can properly distinguish desire from value. To desire something is to
have an emotional feeling of longing towards it. Valuing something, on the other hand, just
means that you've evaluated it as something good, that you would like to have happen to you.
It's not emotional. It's cognitive. Of course, some people follow their feelings. So in that case,
they would think that just because they desire it, it must be a value. But they're just evaluating
it as a positive because of the emotions. There's two separate acts occurring. One is feeling the
desire. The second is concluding that it's a value.

Now I want to finish this discussion off by talking about semantics. The word value has a
couple of meanings, and it can confuse people if you're not watching the context carefully.

In the widest sense, Rand identifies it as something you can act to gain and/or keep. That's
quite broad, and doesn't say anything about the quality of a person's evaluations. It just says
that they have evaluated it as something positive, something they would like to gain and/or
keep.

Later, when we talk about objective morality, and the ability to judge whether something is
actually beneficial to you or not, the word 'value' gets used in a different way. It comes to

mean an objective value. We might say "But it really is a value to you". Or "It is of value to
you". Both of these talk about a properly evaluated value.

Additionally, some people will use 'value' to mean 'want' or 'desire'. "I value it" can be taken
to mean it's something I want. We'll try to avoid this usage because it's not correct. As I
already mentioned, to value it is to recognize it as a value, which is cognitive. You may
additionally feel desire for it, and that might even be the reason behind your acceptance of it
as a value, but it's not the same. "I value it" means "I evaluate it to be positive".

Objective, Subjective, Intrinsic

There are three major views of the nature of values. The first two, subjective and intrinsic, are
often seen as a dichotomy. Objectivism accepts an objective view of values.

Let's start with subjective values. Basically what this means is that something is a value
because you choose it to be. Anything you decide is a value is valuable. There are no
objective standards when it comes to morality. You do whatever you want, and pursue
whatever value you happen to want. Everyone chooses their own values, and there is no
possibility of objectively judging the values of other people.

The alternative to subjective is objective. Since subjective values come from the subject, then
it is sometimes thought that objective values must come from the object. This is what
Objectivists call intrinsic values, though. It means that the value is supposed to reside inside
the object itself. Water is of value, right? If we dismiss subjective values, then one possibility
is that the value isn't just our own opinion, but it actually is an aspect of the object. So water
must have some 'value' characteristic that we can somehow observe. This is considered
objective because the 'value' is out there, where anyone can see it. Except of course nobody
explains how exactly we observe this 'value' characteristic.

As I said, that was intrinsic values. The object is intrinsically valuable, and we just have to
observe the fact. The intrinsic theory escapes the subjectivism, but it has the side-effect of
being entirely wrong. Also, while it explains why people may act to gain and/or keep an
object (it doesn't really explain it...just states it), it doesn't quite explain other values, like
happiness, self-esteem, sense of achievement, etc. If physical objects are valuable because
some magical value stuff emanates from them, what about non-physical values?

The alternative to these is what Objectivists call The Objective Theory of Value. Instead of
postulating that a value resides in objects, or is just a figment of our imagination, it holds that
there is a relationship between the value and the valuer. This theory can also be called the
relational theory of value. It says that something is of value to a specific person, for a specific
reason. You value water because you need it to survive. You value chocolate because it tastes
good. You value Objectivism because it provides you with a framework for understanding
your own life better.

Notice also that because the values are relational, they're also contextual. I may like a glass of
milk because it tastes good and has calcium, but someone else may be lactose-intolerant.

Different people will evaluate things differently due to the fact that their needs are different.
Similarly, you may value a glass of water a lot when you're thirsty, but not much at all if
you're not. The relationship between the value and the valuer change over time, depending on
context. This is something that an intrinsic theory cannot account for. If the value did exist
independent of anyone to value it, then it should be the same every time, and to every person.

Since the values are relational, you can't talk about something being valuable in an abstract,
disembodied way. It is always a value to someone, for a specific reason. The whole discussion
of values presupposes these conditions. You need an entity that's capable of acting towards a
goal, and you need to have some point or reason for the action. Only then does the concept of
value make any sense. Additionally, the entity must be faced with an alternative, or again the
concept of value is meaningless. If there is no choice in the action, then there is no point to the
evaluation.

Before finishing, it should also be noted that intrinsic values, in practice, act as subjective
values. Because there is no explicit means of determining what is or isn't a value, you
basically just have to guess. Or follow what other people say. Or what the bible says. Or
whatever you feel like today. The intrinsic theory or value just allows one to rationalize their
values, and try to claim the mantle of objectivity.

I discussed intrinsic values in more detail in my article Inner Peace on this site. Since an
intrinsic value is not relational, it claims to have value in and of itself. How do you compare
two intrinsic values if you have to make a choice between them? What standard would you
use to compare them? The intrinsic theory holds that the values do exist as part of the object,
but it doesn't say how you gain knowledge of it, and so it doesn't give you a means of
comparing them. And so you're left with the same as subjective value theory. You think it has
such and such amount of value, and that's good enough. You make trade offs by whatever you
end up feeling like.

How do these non-relational values compare with relational values? If you think animals have
some intrinsic value in staying alive, how do you compare that to values such as having a
steak for nourishment, having a fur coat for warmth, having a leather jacket for protection
from the elements, etc? Although both claim to be values, they don't actually have a common
measurement, because they don't have a common method of identification. Relational values
are valuable to a person, for a reason. Intrinsic values are not. You can't compare them based
on a single cognitive standard. You're left with comparing them based on how much you
desire them. Since any kind of value can lead to an emotional desire, that is the only standard
left of comparing them. And if that's not obvious already, it means that by accepting intrinsic
values, you need to treat everything as subjective values in order to compare them. If you just
had relational values, you could compare the different ends which you're accomplishing. You
could compare the purposes behind the values. But once you accept a value that has no
purpose, you can't follow that method. You need to choose the only thing they have in
common, and that's your level of desire. Mixing a little poison with your food leaves the
whole thing poisonous.

Emotional Responses and Selecting Values

In the last lecture, I talked about how intrinsic values can't be rationally compared, so you're
left with just feeling your way to a solution. This is a pretty serious problem, and what we're
going to focus on in this thread.

Remember that our emotions stem from our previous value-judgments. It's because we
recognize something as good or bad that we emotionally react to it in a particular way. One
major problem with deciding to adopt a more rational system of ethics is that your previous
value-judgments still affect your emotions, and that includes the emotions you feel towards
possible values. It takes time to work them out, and realize that some things you might have
thought were valuable really aren't, or the reverse.

What if someone tried to rely on their emotions in order to make decisions? If he relies on his
emotions, then the first thing he's doing is throwing out the option of rationally validating his
value-judgments, past or future. Since the emotional responses are based on the value-
judgments made in the past, he's accepting whatever value-judgments were made in his past,
and deciding that he'll stick with those. A call for relying on your emotions is like trying to
snap-shot your past decisions and sticking with them in an unthinking way, regardless of
context or possible mistakes.

The next thing to note is that it's circular. Since your emotional responses are based on
previous value-judgments, they can't be used as a replacement for the value-judgments. You
don't gain any new information by going through this intermediate step. If you weren't able to
compare different choices before, the emotions doesn't help.

The important point here is that choosing between values based on how you feel about them is
not a form of rational judgment. Say you accept to intrinsic values. The first is "all living
things". The other is "science and knowledge". You may decide both of these are values in
themselves, and you have certain emotional responses to them. Now, when it comes to
deciding between them, like on the issue of scientific experiments using animals, which one
wins?

The answer is that it doesn't matter. Since you don't have a rational basis for choosing one
over the other, you can't rely on your emotions to make the "right" decision. They only have
your value-judgments to go on. If you weren't able to choose between them cognitively, your
emotions aren't going to be able to solve the problem for you. It's as useful as flipping a coin.
The fact that you seem to be making a comparison only distracts you from the complete
invalidity of the method. You're trying to comparing two incommensurable things.

This isn't to say that emotions don't play a useful role in ethics. In real life, you're not able to
compare and contrast every possible option before making a decision. Emotions, like desire,
can act as a short-cut to identifying which values are the most important to you. When your
emotions align with your reasoning, this can allow for quick, accurate decisions. But you still
have to double check with your reasoning. Emotions cannot act as a substitute for rational
value-judgment.

Rational Ethics and Standards of Value

In epistemology, we've discussed that to make proper comparisons, we need a single standard
of evaluation by which you compare things. That's certainly true of ethics as well. The central
problem of ethics is choosing between the different possible values. How you choose is the
most important aspect of an ethical system.

I refer to rational ethics as a system that allows you to choose between different values by a
method of comparison. The key to rational ethics is to have a single standard of value. A
standard of value is just a standard of evaluation that you use to weigh the different possible
values. It has to be something that every possible value can be weighed against, and so you
can pick between them. Different systems of ethics will have different standards by which
they make the comparisons, leading to different results.

When I use the phrase 'rational ethics', I'm focusing on the fact that these systems of ethics
choose values cognitively based on a standard of value. I don't mean to imply that the
standard of value is correct, or rational. The point is to notice that the analysis of the values is
done cognitively based on some objective standard. We've already seen how a system of
ethics based on intrinsic values or emotional analysis are non-cognitive. This is also true
where an ethical standard is not made explicit. Most people don't study the philosophy of
ethics, leaving themselves without an explicit method of choosing between values. They may
end up having a number of rules-of-thumb that they follow, finishing the task with "whatever
feels right". They have no clear standard by which they act.

Another kind of ethics is a rule-based ethics. It says you can't do certain things. Thou shalt not
this. Thou shalt not that. But when it comes to picking between the actions you are allowed to
do, it doesn't give much insight. So although you can use reason to invalidate some choices, it
only acts as a partial guide.

Contrast this to a system of ethics that says you should help other people. Now it's true that
this isn't a rational choice of standards, but once accepted, you can use reason to determine the
values that best fit this standard. You're able to evaluate who is most in need, and which
actions best utilizes your resources to to accomplish it. You don't have to rely on emotions to
choose between the possible actions. You can actually weigh the different possibilities against
each other.

Going back to the point of ethics in the first place, we have to make choices. The only
question is, how will we make them. The rational analysis that comes with having a single
standard of value is a huge part of the solution. Without it, we don't actually have a complete
means of picking between the different values. We leave it up to some unspecified means. In
the case of relying on your emotions, it is only superficially a means of picking. In fact, it is
only relying on an unspecified means.

It should be noted that not all ethical systems are concerned with values. A value-based
system assumes there is some reason to pursue a particular action. It assumes that there is a

point to the value. That you achieve something important. Some ethical theories favor a duty-
based ethics, where you do it not because it achieves something, but because you're supposed
to. That is, there is no reason, just do it anyway.

Other systems are more concerned with intentions than consequences. This is usually used
after the fact to judge an action, and not really before. If someone meant well, but did
something we normally think of as bad, this intentions-based ethics is a way of trying to
dismiss the bad result. It's kind of a touchy-feely altruist ethics, where "caring" is more
important than helping.

There are also virtue-based ethics that uphold living by moral rules or principles as the
important point, and not the specific values you pick. It's more important to be honest than to
achieve something positive with your honesty. Not all systems divorce virtues from value.
Objectivism is one that keeps them both. We'll get into that more in the future.

Life: The Ultimate Value

As we've seen in the previous threads, we need to figure out what the standard of value is for
Objectivism. The answer is 'life', but that might not mean exactly what you think. I gave a
speech on the topic that might shed some light on it. I recommend reading it before
continuing.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/The_Meaning_Of_Life.shtml

What is life? What do we mean when we say the word? Since the word stands at the center
of Objectivist ethics, the answer to this question has wide-reaching implications. We say
that life is our standard of evaluation when judging morality. It seems like it'd be a good
idea to take a closer look at the term. This lecture is intended to determine what exactly is
the meaning of the word life. I'll discuss different possible meanings, and the implications
of both.

So to start, I'm making the claim that there are two very different, competing ideas for the
meaning of life. I call these the static and the dynamic view of life. I believe the static view
of life is the more predominant view. I also believe it to be the incorrect view, which I'll
attempt to show throughout this lecture.. The dynamic view of life is far less common, but
appears to be more precise and useful. I'll start with an explanation of the two competing
views of life, before comparing and contrasting them. I'll begin with the static view of life.

Static View of Life:

The static view of life holds that life is a state. It's like a position you get to. An end point
you secure or maintain. An analogy is being satiated after a nice meal. You've arrived at
the state, or secured it. Over time, you start to lose the position, though. You automatically
move farther away from it. You can then act again in order to re-secure the position.
Without action, you'll eventually stop being satisfied, and become hungry.

In this view, life is the opposite of death. Death is the state at which your mind and body
stop functioning. It's a point that when you reach it, it fundamentally changes what you
are. You go from being a living breathing entity, to a corpse. In this sense, death is very
clear-cut. We can take a similar view of life. Life, then, is the state in which your mind and
body still function. It's the condition before death.

With this view of life in mind, let's look at some implications to this view of life. To start,
since life is our standard of morality, what implications would that have on our ethics.
What kind of actions would we take, and how will we evaluate those actions according to
this view.

If you think of life as the state of not being dead, there's a lot of things you can do to
prevent death. You can put a large zone of comfort between you and death. The easiest
example is having lots of money. Money can buy medical treatment, food, clothing, shelter,
self-defense...the list goes on and on. So to ensure your life, you could seek to gain large
sums of money.

Next, your health is an important indication of how far away you are from death. You can
even say it's the direct measure. Money is an abstract measurement of how far you are
from death. It adds long term security, and protection against surprises. Health, though, is
right there. If you fail in any of your needs in life, you can see your health deteriorate.
Everything is geared towards increasing your health, and decreasing illness.

Then there's risk. If life is a state, then you have to avoid actions that might lead to death.
Risk-minimization is important. In modern days, where medical science is pretty useful,
and food is abundant, non-natural death is relatively very dangerous. Sudden accidents
can kill you even if you're very healthy, and have lots of money. So reducing risks is one of
the ways of promoting life.

You can continue this method of looking at life, and determining values. Some are more
abstract. Capitalism, for instance, reduces threats of war, violence from your own
government, makes food more plentiful, encourages medical science to progress, etc. You
can look at all of these ends which helps buffer your from death.

I said earlier that the static view of life was predominant. Now that we have a better idea
of what it is, we can point to instances of this view. There's a number of them, so I'll
concentrate on some of the bigger ones.

First, there's the idea of 'success'. People strive for it, and others are jealous of it. So what
is it? Well, many people would say that 'success' is having accomplished great things, or
acquiring large amounts of wealth. Success usually involves having a nice paying job, a
comfortable house, sporty cars, beautiful wife and kids, and a dog or cat. It can include
having made a scientific breakthrough, or becoming President of the United States, or
starting a successful business. This view of success is very much based on a view that life is
a state. It points to a pretty picture, showing all of the things you have or have done.

A second instance of the static view of life is the goal of retirement. Many people yearn for

the day they'll be able to quite their job because they've got enough money. They have this
idea that maybe they'll take it easy, hang out with friends or loved ones, and stop wasting
so much of their lives. They can travel the world, meet interesting people, and not have a
worry in the world. I say this is the static view of life because it seeks a point in life where
you are finished. You have everything you need to live. There's no point continuing to
struggle because you've secured, as well as you can, the bulk of your contest against death.

A third, and similar instance of this view of life is marriage. A lot of young people view
marriage as a position to reach in life. It's supposed to bring happiness. I've seen people
who think that once they get married, many of their troubles will go away. They'll have
secured companionship, and they'll be able to focus on other things. In this sense,
marriage is seen as an end-product. A value that's achieved.

So to review, the static view of life holds that life is a state. Actions should be taken to
preserve or strengthen this state. Since it's a state, you can measure it at any particular
time. You can point to the money, marriage, house, or well-paying job as proof of your
successful living. The focus is very much on the values you accomplish. I'll now turn to the
dynamic view of life.

Dynamic View of Life:

The dynamic view of life holds that life is a process, not a state. Ayn Rand said "Life is a
process of self-sustaining and self-generated action." Notice the term 'process'. It's a
"process of self-sustaining and self-generated action".

In this view, life is not a state, but a series of actions. Life isn't a place you reach, but the
process of reaching it. Life is action. It's the things you do. It's the process of accomplishing
goals, not just the end results of the goals. Life is action. Life is the things you do and
accomplish.

In the analogy I gave earlier, I compared the static view of life to being satiated. In the
dynamic view of life, being satiated may be the end target, but it's the process of producing
food, cooking, eating, and digesting that we would call life. This is not to say being satiated
is not the goal. That is still the ends being pursued. But life is not simply the ends. It's the
entire process, from start to finish.

So life isn't just the things you accomplish. It's not having a lot of goods, or having
accomplished a lot. It very much depends on how you gained those goods, and how you
achieved it. It's not the money in your wallet, but how you got the money. Did you earn it?
Did you steal it? Or did you find it in an old pair of pants?

In this view of life, values are still important, but for a different reason. They're not there
to simply stave off death. They're there to improve your ability to live. Ever heard the
phrase "it takes money to make money"? The point is that to accomplish bigger things, in
shorter periods of time, you are benefited from wealth that you've already achieved.

You can think of values as stepping-stones that further your life. They increase your ability

to act in your own self-interest. Each value accomplished allows you to increase your
range of possible movements. Values such as money, education, skills, friendships, and yes,
philosophy, all widen your scope of actions. It increases both the kinds of things you can
do, and the amount of them.

If a soda and a candy bar each cost a dollar, and you've got one dollar, you have to choose.
If you have two dollars, you can have both. So you can choose more combinations. But you
may also find that two dollars can buy you a hamburger. So you have even more possible
actions to take. This is true of all values. Having more knowledge allows you to learn even
more. Having combinations such as education and money can allow for unique
opportunities, such as an entrepreneurial venture or impressing a woman.

The dynamic view of life does not mean action for the sake of action. Remember, it's a
process of "self-sustaining and self-generated action". The end to which the actions are
aimed is furthering your ability to live. Or in other words, furthering your life. The goal of
your life is to continue your life. Which means the goals of your actions should be to
continue acting.

Let's get a little more specific. We're trying to improve our ability to live. So let's go over a
few examples of what that means. I've already provided some values, such as money and
health, that help ensure that you don't die. And not dying is a good thing if you want to
keep acting.

But there's other things you need. Education is a big one, and one that's widely recognized.
But it's only part of the picture. You also need the ability to think logically. You need the
ability to learn, and the habits of pursuing new knowledge. You need to make judgments
about what knowledge will be useful in the future, and what is the best method of
acquiring and maintaining that knowledge.

You not only need relationships with people, at both the friendship level and the romantic
level, but you need the ability to maintain them. You need the wisdom to pick the right
friends and lovers. You need the patience to deal with any little problems that happen, and
the perspective in order to judge how things are going.

Having a nice paying job is great, but you need the skills to do the job. You need the ability
and the habit of seeing new opportunities. You need to have the initiative to take on new
roles within the company. You need to be responsible with your authority, and dependable
as an employee. You need to accomplish your tasks on time, and contribute positively.
Even more important, you need to have alternatives if your particular company goes
under. You need a broad enough skill set to get jobs elsewhere. You need to retain your
ability to work hard and learn new jobs.

Another part of the dynamic view is the "self-generated" aspect. Gaining values is
unimportant if you're not the one doing it. Life is self-generated action. Others can't live
for you. They can make it easier or harder for you to live, but ultimately you are the one
that lives your life.

You can contrast this with the static view of life. With it, you're goal is to stave off death.
This means that others could provide you with the tools you need to stave off death,
assuming that they are reliable. If you have very rich parents, they can give you all the
money you need. You never need to work for it. With the static view of life, this would be
okay.

The dynamic view of life rejects this, though. Life isn't just about having values, but
seeking and acquiring them. If your parents gave you everything you ever desired, you
wouldn't be living. You might be alive, as in your body and mind might still function, but
you wouldn't be living.

Let's go further. Imagine a world where every desire is provided by another. Hungry?
Someone feeds you. Want the lawn mowed? They'll do it for you. Want the kitchen
cleaned? They'll wash it. You wouldn't be able to acquire any skills, because others would
always be there to satisfy them. Need to read something? Someone will read it to you.
Need to count to ten or do simple math? Someone's there to do it for you. Every possible
need would be taken care of by another.

It's not just that you'd be completely dependent on these people. It's that your life would
be empty. There'd be nothing to do, nothing to achieve, no way to improve yourself. It
would be you just waiting to die. There would be no actions necessary, which means there
would be no values necessary. It would be a truly pointless life.

It's not just that it's boring, either. It's that you wouldn't really be living. Think about the
phrase "get a life". It means get out there and do something. Pursue values. Accomplish
them.

Life is a process. It's the things you do. It's not only action, but purposeful action. And the
purposes have to be yours. You have to choose them. You have to pursue them. You have
to accomplish them. And when you're done, you have to choose new values. No one else
can do it for you. Just as no one else can breathe for you, or think for you. Your life is your
responsibility. If you default on the responsibility, the consequences are yours.

Purposeful Living:

Life is self-generated, self-sustaining action. Life is purposeful action. It is the process of
setting goals, and achieving them. The ultimate purpose is to continue acting. Your actions
should be aimed at not only sustaining your current ability to live, but increasing it.

Man's potential for living is an upward slope. He's born stupid, poor, and funny looking.
He's got nowhere to go but up from there. In the process of living, he should gain
knowledge, skills, wealth, and values. In almost every category, he has the ability to
continually improve his condition.

If you're successful at living, your situation should always be improving. Your goal is to be
better off every day then you were the day before. Whether it's through developing your
mind or body, gaining wealth, or meeting interesting people, you are improving your life.

This is the "self-sustaining" part of the action.

As your effectiveness at living increases, you can choose larger and more ambitious tasks
to pursue. Starting your own company can be an impossible task for someone without
relevant knowledge, money, contacts, and skills. As you acquire them, the task becomes
easier. In this way, life always progresses. Your range of action increases, and goals that
used to be difficult become easier. Tasks that were out of your range move into your
sphere of action. Your actions become more advanced as you take advantage of more of
your past achievements.

Life requires purposeful action. But we need to take a dynamic view here as well. Just
because your actions are immediately aimed at some value does not make them
purposeful in the fullest sense of term. Instead, your actions over time need to be
integrated towards a common goal. Each successful action should move you farther along
your path.

This brings up the idea of stagnation. Under the static view of life, stagnation is fine. It
doesn't matter that you're not doing anything with your life, as long as you are able to stay
alive. The dynamic view, though, rejects stagnation. Performing the same actions over
time, with no change to your situation, is not living. It's merely waiting to die.

Action is goal directed. You act in order to achieve values. If over time you act without any
positive results, it's as if you didn't act. You've gained nothing from your effort, except
staving off death for a little longer. Your actions lose any purpose.

Of course, in the short term they still appear goal-directed. You may farm your land to
provide enough food to survive, and continue every year. Every action you take is aimed at
some goal. But when seen from a larger perspective, you realize that nothing is being
accomplished. What little life you have is fading away slowly, with nothing gained. Every
year you accomplish nothing is a year wasted.

Now that the dynamic view of life is clearer, we can reevaluate a few points. Earlier I
discussed the word 'success' from the point of view of life as a state. We can see how the
dynamic view of life is much different. In the static view, it was all about what you possess,
and what goals you have accomplished. The dynamic view also includes these, but only as
part of the complete picture. Success in this sense means successful at living. It includes
your past accomplishment since they pertain to your current and future ability to live. But
it also includes much more, like pride, confidence, skills, knowledge, adaptability, courage,
etc.

A man who is successful at living is someone who seeks proper values, and achieves them.
It's a man who can face change or adversity, and who deals with it. It's a man who's
comfortable with himself and his life. Who likes where he is, and where he's going. It's the
independent man, who controls his own destiny. It's the man who deals effectively with
the world, and deals fairly with himself. It's the man who has the courage to act, the
strength of will to pursue that which he knows is right. In short, it's the man who knows
how to live, and acts accordingly.

Contrast this with the static view. One has wealth, the other has the ability to produce
wealth. One has a relationship, the other has the values desirable in a relationship. One has
a college degree, the other has the appropriate knowledge, and the ability and will to learn
new subjects. One has gotten somewhere, the other is always going somewhere.

I also mentioned that in the static view of life, risk is to be avoided. If avoiding death is the
goal, then you have to be very careful. Never rock the boat. Never take a chance that might
leave you in a bad situation.

The dynamic view of life is far different. Risk is a part of life. It makes sense to reduce your
chances of failure or worse, but living is the real purpose. If you have to choose between
risk and not acting, you would take the risk. If you get to a point in your life where the best
opportunities are fairly risky, you take them. In this view, it's far better to live and fail,
then to sit idle waiting for death. This is the idea behind the phrase "It's better to have
loved and lost, then never to have loved at all". Just substitute 'lived' for 'loved'.

I also mentioned Capitalism as a good in the static view of life. How does the dynamic view
look at it? Well, instead of saying that Capitalism is good because it enhances your chance
of survival by reducing war, crime, and poverty, the dynamic view of life would say that
Capitalism is good because it is the only system that really allows you to live. Freedom is a
prerequisite for any action, and since your life is the actions you take, Capitalism is the
only system truly compatible with life. That the results are great is nice as well, of course.
But it's secondary to the freedom. Ask yourself if you'd give up some of your wealth in
order to ensure you were left free. Fortunately, there's no trade-off between wealth and
freedom.

Aren't they just the same?

This finishes up my initial discussion of the static vs. dynamic views of life. I now want to
show how they compare in practice. Before I do, though, there's one last topic to discuss.
Since most people use a combination of the two views in everyday thinking and
conversation, we should ask one more question. Aren't these views really just the same?
Or maybe just different aspects of the same thing?

What might lead someone to this question? Well, the static view of life could be
"expanded" to include a lot of the elements of the dynamic view. For instance, you might
say that having skills and abilities help ensure that you stay alive. The ability to learn, for
instance, would be a good hedge against any future changes in your occupation, or other
situations that require a lot of new ideas.

With this in mind, you could then claim that the static view of life is also concerned not just
with whether you're alive, but in how you stay alive. Certain methods are more conducive
to staying alive, and they'll allow you to stay alive in the future. Working hard and
understanding your job can be seen as directly promoting the static view of life as well.

So are they the same? There's certainly a lot of overlap. I think there's a number of big

differences, though.

The first is the goal. In the static view of life, you aim to avoid death. It upholds a negative
as your source of values. It's all a struggle against death, which you'll eventually lose.
When many people think this through, they ask questions like "what's the point of it all?
I'm going to die anyway, aren't I?"

In the dynamic view of life you aim to live your life and enjoy the process of living it. Your
goal isn't to prevent death, except in that death prevents you from continuing to live. You
aim at the positive. The static view just can't be made to match the dynamic view. Even if
you try to include elements of the dynamic view, such as your ability to grow as a person,
or your mental habits you've developed, the ends are just too different. If given an
opportunity to abandon all action for certain security, the static view would take it, and
the dynamic view wouldn't. An example is a technological marvel that puts you on a
respirator, feeds your body all the nutrients it wants, but doesn't allow you to physically
act. Yes, your body would still live on. But that's not life!

A second difference is a matter of focus. What aspect of life do you focus on. In the static
view, you focus on the state. Even if you claim that a correct process works towards a
better state, you still have a predisposition towards looking at what you have, and not how
you got it. The view that life is a process, though, keeps you focused on the fact that you
are an acting human being. You look at what you're doing, and not what you've done.

Hopefully this should clear up any lingering questions about the differences between the
two. I'll now turn to some applications of the two views.

Happiness:

The concept of happiness is also at the center of Objectivist ethics. It's something we all
strive for. But what is it? I claim that there are two fundamentally different ideas of what
happiness is, depending on which meaning of life you accept.

In the static view of life, happiness is a point you reach. It can include a number of things,
like a wife, kids, a nice house, the gold watch you always wanted, and money in the bank.
When people ask "What would make you happy", it's the static view of life. It's the claim
that happiness is something you achieve, and then it's yours. "If I just had my own house,
I'd be happy." "If only I could marry this girl, I'd be happy".

In this view of happiness, it's the things you have, or the things you've accomplished that
makes you happy. With this in mind, other people could make you happy. If they gave you
money, love, a sense of accomplishment. And even those who claim you can't buy
happiness often think in terms of life as a state. They think money won't do it, but love will.
Meeting the person of your dreams is all you need to do. In any case, the static view always
points to something as the source of your happiness.

The dynamic view of life rejects this. Life is a process. Happiness is the enjoyment of the
process of living. It's not about what you have, but how you live your life. Do you enjoy

your job. Are you excited about your future. Are you comfortable with your
accomplishments. Do you like the people with which you associate. Are you proud of who
you are, and what you've done?

Happiness isn't the temporary feeling of joy that occurs when you get something you
always wanted, or you succeed in a great accomplishment. Those are good too. But
happiness is more than that. It's an emotional response to a proper evaluation of your own
life. The evaluation integrates all of your actions, your values pursued, and every other
part of your life. It's the judgment of how well you are living your life.

Relationships:

Another area where a static view of life differs from a dynamic view is in the realm of
relationships. From the static view, a relationship is something to acquire, and maybe
maintain. You get married to someone, and that's a value gain. You have friends that share
values with you. You succeed in creating relationship with people, and maintaining them.
You're happy with the fact that you're together with someone great.

The dynamic view has a different focus. It doesn't ask whether you have friendships or are
married. It asks what values are you getting from them. Having a friend is not enough.
What's the point? Well, the point may be to share experiences with. To take on challenges
together. To face the world with someone you trust.

Your goal is never to merely maintain a friendship. It's to enjoy a friendship. You have
friends in order to achieve values. To enhance your experience of living. Friendships open
up opportunities. They allow actions that are not possible without them. The dynamic
view of life makes you ask "How can I gain satisfaction and enjoyment from this
relationship".

This is similar with other forms of relationships, including romantic relationships. The
dynamic view of life always looks at what the relationship is providing. If it's not much,
you should act to improve it. Is your romance fading? Do something about it! Spend a
weekend together. Write a poem. Tell her how beautiful and intelligent you think she is.
Never take a relationship as a given, never to be questioned. Earn the relationship, and
make it work for you. Don't do just enough to prevent your spouse from leaving you. Make
it as great as possible.

Health:

I briefly mentioned health as the primary value in the static view of life. It's your distance
from death, after-all. So in this sense, the measurement of health is how likely you are to
not die, now and in the future.

The dynamic view of health is a bit wider. It's not just a matter of how likely you are to die,
but how able you are to live. Are you fit enough to enjoy exercising? Are you strong
enough to move your own furniture. How about mental health? Some slight cases of
mental illness may not cause you to die, but certainly affect your ability to live. So in this

sense, the dynamic view of life views health as a much wider concept.

But there's another difference. The static view of life holds health as some kind of duty.
You have to maintain it, since it's what prevents you from dying. Can you smoke? Never.
That stuff can kill you. What should you eat? Only what the doctors say is best for you.
Tofu, wheat germ, and seaweed. How often should you exercise? Every other day. In what
form should you exercise? Anything without risk. No sports, cause you could hit your head.
No wind-surfing, cause you could get eaten by sharks. Something nice, safe, and boring.
Like jogging. Or yoga.

Of course, the dynamic view of life doesn't buy into any of that. Sure, exercise is good for
you, and enables you to live a better life. But it's not a duty. It's part of the process of living.
Find ways to enjoy it. Pick the exercises you get excited about. Make trade-offs between
exercise and other activities. You're not living in order to stay alive. You stay alive in order
to live.

Morality:

The last topic I want to discuss is ethics. In a way, this whole talk has dealt with morality.
But I want to address a few specific differences.

Since life is that standard of morality, obviously the differences in views have different
results. The static view, always looking at a particular state or condition, will look
primarily at the results. How you got there isn't important. What you're going to do now is
also not very important. It's only what you have, and how that prevents you from dying.

The dynamic view looks closer at method. It claims that your life is a process, a series of
action unified towards a common goal. It also cares about where you are right now, but
only in the context of where you're doing with it. Having a nice job is nice under both
views, but the dynamic view also looks at how you do your job, and where you're going
from here.

Since the dynamic view is more focused on the process, it's not surprising that it is more
compatible with the idea of virtues. Virtues are guides to living your life. They're guides to
how to act, and what actions to take. The static view, only concerned with results, is much
harder to associate with virtues. Many people try, showing that virtues lead to the best
conclusions, but it's so indirect, and there's always imaginary scenarios where it'd work
better defying your virtues.

But working better by what standard? By the standard of a static view of life. A view of
values you possess, and the condition you're living in at some point. Under the dynamic
view of life, virtues are far more important. They enable you not only to gain particular
values, but make it easier for you to gain future values as well. Through virtues, you
develop the correct moral habits, that enhance your ability to live. You don't just achieve
values. You achieve the ability to achieve values.

The dynamic view of life holds that it's not just the values you pursue that are important,

but how you pursue them. In this view, the means become an end as well. There is no
moral distinction between them. You never need to sacrifice one for the other. They're all
values, and so they can all be judged accordingly.

Conclusion:

Let's go over what we've learned. I've shown that there are two very different meanings to
the word life. The static view of life holds that life is a state. The state of not being dead. It
looks at any particular point in time, and points to what you've got.

The dynamic view of life holds that life is a process. You are living when you are acting. It
looks at method as much as goals.

The two views have very different implications in areas such as health, happiness, and
success. In every case given, the dynamic view of life is broader in its implications, and
more valuable as a standard of evaluation. It suggests how you should act, and not just
what you should act towards.

I'll end this speech on an interesting note. It's been said that men have unlimited desires.
As soon as you satisfy some, they have new ones. Many people have taken this as a point to
despair about. They think that we can never be happy because we can never achieve
everything we want. If you're always left wanting, it must truly be a cruel world.

Well that's the static view of life talking. When you recognize that life is a process, and it's
about the things you do, you realize the implications of their wishes. They wish for a state
in which you have nothing further to pursue. You have no goals, no values, nothing new to
accomplish. According to the dynamic view of life, your life would be over at this point.

Fortunately, we live in a world where we can always achieve new and greater things.
There's no end to the possibilities we have ahead of us. Thank you.

Rand uses the concept of an "ultimate value". Imagine explaining why you did a particular
act. Say you drove to the store and bought a new telephone. It's not enough to say you value
new telephones. Why do you value it? What do you hope to accomplish with it? Say you
bought it so you can communicate with friends. Why do you want to communicate with
them? So you can more easily facilitate spending time with them. Why spend time with them?
It's enjoyable and you like the company. Why does that matter? Well, companionship has a
number of values to offer, including the possibility of learning from others, seeing the world
through a different perspective, doing projects you wouldn't be able to do alone, etc. Why is
any of that important? Well...

And it goes on and on. Each value you point to is a means to some other value. You can't
really judge any one value unless you know the ultimate reason for pursuing it. For instance,
if I try to make money, it's not good in itself. What am I making money for? To buy a battery.
What's the battery for? For a new device I'm building. What's the device for? Etc., etc. You
can trace a path from one set of values to another, but you can't start judging them until you

know what the ultimate purpose is. All of these other steps are just that. Steps towards
something. What's your ultimate purpose? What's your ultimate value?

So that's what we mean by ultimate value. It's the value that everything else is geared towards.
It's also the benchmark for how you judge the intermediate steps. With life as our standard of
value, it is life itself that defines how important the intermediate steps are. We judge our
actions and our values based on how well they succeed at achieving our ultimate value. And
that's how we manage to get a single standard of value by which we compare all of our other
values.

Why life? Rand had a few things to say about this. The first is that metaphysically, life is the
only end in itself. Life is a process directed at maintaining itself. If you cease to act towards
that value, you will cease to live.

Also, the whole concept of value is dependent on the concept of life. Value doesn't mean
anything without life. You don't say that something is of value to a rock, or a mountain, or a
river. Value presupposes a living entity. Without it, there is no values. There are no actions or
goals. There are no choices.

I think it might help to discuss things in terms of the phrase "good for". For instance, "Eat
those vegetables. They're good for you." Or "we need to do what's good/best for the child".
These phrases, while sometimes not associated with morality, make sense from an Objectivist
point of view. "Good for" in these sentences is usually meant to link an action or value with
the life of the person. The vegetables are good for someone because they are healthy and
provide nourishment. You would never hear that about something that was not conducive to a
person's life. Similarly, doing what's best for a child is an attempt to focus the decision on the
well-being of the child. In other words, to focus on the child's life. The phrase is used all the
time, in many different contexts, but the meaning is pretty clear.

The point here is that when Objectivist talk about "good", it's not just a random adjective that
describes moral actions. It ties the moral judgment to the benefit of the living being. To say
something is "good" means that it's good for someone or something, as well as that pursuing it
is the right thing to do. This can be confusing at first because the two meanings are
conventionally thought to be very different. When self-sacrifice is part of your moral code,
what's "good" for you is not always what's "good" to do.

On Objectivist forums, there has long been arguments over whether "survival" or
"flourishing" is the proper standard of value. Those arguing for flourishing say that mere
survival isn't enough of a standard to explain anything beyond the most basic of actions. If
just staying alive was the goal, then we never need to aspire to new heights, use our minds
creatively, etc.

The "survival" camp argue that flourishing is not a rational standard of value. How do you
know that a person is flourishing, or that an action will help him flourish. It's nice to talk
about aspiring to new heights and what-not, but the concept "flourish" is epistemologically
dependent on a value judgment, which it's suppose to be providing the basis for. In other

words, if you say "the moral thing to do is be the most moral you can be", you're not actually
providing any idea of what is moral and what's not. Flourishing is akin to "the good life", or
living life "well", both of which require a standard to judge it by.

From my article above, I disagree with the flourishers view of survival as the standard of
measurement. I think they interpret it as the static view of life, and of course reject it as
incomplete. But their own standard is flawed for the reasons given by the survivalists.

The Choice to Live

An important point in Objectivist ethics is that it hinges on a pre-moral choice to live or not.
We can discuss how you should act to pursue your life as the ultimate standard, but that
depends on whether you choose to live at all. If living is not what you're aiming for, then it
makes no sense to say you should do this or that. You have to choose life first.

We talked about how man is a being of volitional nature. In ethics, this is of enormous
importance. If we lived our lives in an automatic way, we wouldn't need a guide for our
actions. We would just act based on whatever standard was build-in. It's because of our
volitional nature that we have to select a guide. Since we have free will, we can actually
choose anything we want. We can choose to live by a code of values that destroys our lives,
instead of promotes it.

This element of free will not only affects how we pursue our lives, but it affects a more
fundamental question. Do we choose to live our lives in the first place. Since life is a process
of self-generated action, our volitional nature requires us to choose to generate that action.
Without that choice, the Objectivist morality is meaningless. For instance, we say you should
be productive and seek values. But if you don't choose to live, no values are necessary. We
say you should be rational so you can pick your values intelligently, and pursue them
effectively. But again, none of that is necessary if you don't choose life.

It is the fundamental choice that makes all other choices possible and meaningful. That's why
it's called a pre-moral choice. Without that choice to live in the first place, the realm of
morality is meaningless. Consequently, it doesn't make sense to try to judge that choice as
being moral or immoral. It precedes morality.

Happiness

Happiness is sometimes said to be the standard of value in Objectivist ethics. Or it's put into
the phrase "Life and Happiness" to describe how you should select your actions. We've
already seen how life is the standard of value, so clearly happiness isn't. But there are
connections there that need to be made.

First, I wrote an article on Happiness a while back that sheds some light on what exactly we're
talking about.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/What_is_Happiness.shtml

The quest for happiness can take a number of detours. Part of the problem is a lack of
clarity in what exactly is the goal. People sometimes think of happiness as a emotional sum
over a period of time. If at any particular hour of the day, you are enjoying yourself, you
add that to your total. If you feel bad or upset, you subtract that from your total. You could
then say you're happy if, on net balance, you feel more enjoyment then pain.

The problem here is that it's not true. Happiness is more than just the sum of your feelings
through the day. It is an emotional response to an evaluation--the evaluation of how well
you are living your life. Are you growing as a person? Are you satisfied with your moral
character? Do you enjoy your work? Do you spend enough time with your friends? Do you
feel like you're accomplishing something?

The difference between these two views of happiness is like night and day. If you take the
summation view of happiness, then pursuing ANY value, no matter how irrational, can
bring you happiness (even if only in the short term). Drug use is a great example of this,
because it seeks to bring an enjoyment of the moment. But there are many examples of
this short-sighted, short-term approach to feeling good.

This summation view of happiness has three major flaws. First, it encourages a focus on
whatever feels good at the moment, ignoring long term consequences. This almost
guarantees the actions you take will hurt your life in the long run, or feel that your
happiness is somehow in conflict with your life. The second flaw is that it will encourage
you to avoid any stress, no matter the future benefit. Since hard work now can be a pain,
you'll seek to avoid it. And the third flaw is that you can only be happy if you concentrate
on the moment, never looking up to evaluate your life. Because if you do look up, you're
going to see your life being wasted.

Happiness as a response to a well-lived life is better. It encourages you to see the big
picture that is your life. It makes you widen your view of the world and your life, bring
more and more context into your decision making processes. It also encourages
objectivity, since you are not basing your judgment on your feelings, but basing your
feelings on your judgment. You look first to see what your life is like, and then you feel
accordingly.

Happiness is not subjective. It's not simply a mood that you can choose to be in or not. It
has objective requirements that need to be satisfied in order to achieve it. If you want to
achieve it, you need to identify those requirements, and act accordingly.

The first thing to note is that happiness itself would make a poor standard of value, since it is
an emotional response. As we've already seen in the past, emotional responses are based on
our value-judgments. Trying to use your emotions as value-selectors is at best circular.

But there is a connection between life and happiness. The two go hand-in-hand, and it's not
proper to think of Life as the standard without understanding the connection to happiness. A
well lived life, if you understand and appreciate it as such, does lead to happiness. Happiness

is the response to such a life. It's not a separate thing that you can pursue by alternative
means. You can't achieve happiness by performing actions that destroy your life. It's possible
to gain some kind of emotional or physical pleasure from those actions. If you misidentify
what's good for you, or if you evade the consequences of an action, or if you believe that
sacrifice is moral, you may feel good for performing a destructive act. But happiness is not a
single, isolated emotion at a particular time. Those feelings of pleasure are short-lived, and the
destruction you set upon yourself will make sure of that. To make the point, Rand defined
happiness as the state of non-contradictory joy. The pleasure you gain from an action can be
offset by the pain it causes, or the values you know you've given up, etc.

In the article above, I gave the example of drug use as a potentially destructive act that might
lead to short-term pleasure. But it's not hard to see that the drug-addict, who loses his friends,
his means of providing for himself, his self-respect, and potentially his freedom if he goes to
jail, is not going to be happy. The drugs act as a means of evading the knowledge of his bad
life, to avoid the emotions that would come from it.

The point is that happiness can't be achieved by selling your life short. Happiness is
interwoven with your life. You pursue happiness by pursuing your life. And the extent to
which you live your life well is the extent to which happiness is possible to you. Happiness is
the reward for a well-lived life.

Virtues

Objectivism puts values at the center of the ethical universe. It's the results of your actions
that determine whether they're good or bad. We also judge means as well, since only
appropriate means can achieve those values. But the values are the ultimate standard of
judgment on whether an action is right or wrong.

Other systems sometimes uphold means as standard of morality. For them, it's more important
to live your life in a particularly way than to have it be successful. The means are often called
virtues. Sometimes the virtues are destructive, since they're not tied to the end result. For
instance, the conventional view of honesty is that you should always tell the truth.
Objectivism disagrees and says sometimes you should lie, as in the case of a murderer asking
you for some information that he needs to commit his crime.

Objectivism also has virtues, but the virtues are not given primacy over values. We judge
whether a virtue makes sense by the values it achieves. But they are an important part of the
Objectivist ethics, so they're worth looking into in more detail. Instead of repeating what I've
written elsewhere, I'm providing you with links to articles I've written on the topics.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(1_of_13).shtml

Today I'd like to talk about virtues. Specifically, I'd like to better explain what virtues are
and how they should be used. To do this, I will identify a distinction between two very
different kinds of virtues. I call this distinction, "Active vs. Passive Virtues". I'll explain
both of these in more detail, and try to show that the Active form of the virtues is the right

approach.

Before discussing this distinction, I want to briefly discuss virtues in general, and how they
are typically thought of. I'll explain how Objectivist virtues differ from other kinds of
virtues, and identify the major virtues in Objectivist ethics. I'll also comment on a few
important characteristics of virtues.

What is a virtue?

In the most general use of the term, a virtue is a policy of moral action. In other words, a
moral habit. It's not simply a moral action, but a regular pattern of such actions. The moral
actions become part of your character. It becomes an identifiable quality of your actions. A
standard by which you act, and which you are judged.

An example of a virtue is honesty. You might say that an honest man is a man who never
lies. He is committed to never deceiving others, and it shows in his actions. He may
become trustworthy to others, and gain a reputation as someone who can be counted on
to speak the truth.

Now, being virtuous means really being committed to that type of action. A man who lies
occasionally, but speaks the truth for the most part, is not an honest man. Not in the sense
of him being virtuous. To be virtuous, it must be a consistent policy of action.

There may also be a question of intention when understanding virtues in the generic sense
of the term. Is a man who always tells the truth because he fears he'll be caught really an
honest man? He wants to lie, he just doesn't have the guts to do it. Different ethical
theories might come to different conclusions on this topic. But the point I want to make
here is that there is a whole question of what the purpose of virtues is.

Objectivism and Virtues

Ayn Rand said "'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by
which one gains and keeps it."

This doesn't explain the Objectivist position on virtues very well, but it does make a couple
of very important points, which I'll walk through.

The first point is that virtues are actions aimed at achieving values. Before when
discussing what virtues were, I said it was a policy of moral actions. But the question is,
what makes an action moral or not? In some ethical systems, there may not be an answer
to this. The action is just moral. Live with it.

Objectivism, though, shows that virtues are the means by which values are sought. They
are moral because of the values that are achieved through them. They are goal-directed
actions, and they are judged and understood by the ends they are attempting to achieve.

This leads to the second point. Why is it that certain policies of action can be said to be
moral in the first place? It's easy to see how any single action can be judged by the ends it

achieves. But why can we classify an entire set of actions as beneficial? Don't we need to
judge each action individually?

Obviously no. We're able to classify a kind of action as moral because we're able to
abstract moral principles. We're able to identify how a range of actions leads to particular
values. Principles are wide-reaching abstractions that help us grasp the world by taking
huge numbers of concretes, and putting them into a single, understandable, bite-sized
piece of information.

This identifies the next important part of the Objectivist theory of virtues. Every virtue is
based on a moral principle. There is some underlying causal connection between a virtue
as a means, and a value as the ends. Every Objectivist virtue must recognize an abstract
moral principle. This principle is the moral justification of the virtue.

As an aside, this approach to virtues is uncommon. Most ethical system hold virtues as
rules, instead of principles. David Kelley once wrote about the difference between a rule
and a principle. A moral principles says "In order to achieve this, you must do that". A
moral rule says "You must do that". The difference is telling. Objectivist virtues are all
means to ends, and the means are never divorced from the values they are seeking. The
virtue must be accepted with reason, or it cannot be practiced. Other ethical systems
require blind obedience to rules, where there is no necessary thought or understanding.

So under a different ethical system, you might hear the moral rule "Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife". You can rest assured that this nonsense has no place in Objectivist
ethics.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(2_of_13)_Virtues_vs
_Duties.shtml

We need to take a step back and look at how Objectivist ethics compares to other ethical
systems. This will help provide a contrast between Objectivist virtues and other virtue
systems. The intent here is to show how the whole idea of virtues got cast into a particular
mold, which still haunts the Objectivist conception of virtues.

So first, what makes Objectivist ethics different from other ethical system? What's the
essence of it? There are a lot of similarities and differences with other ethical systems, but
let's examine the big one. Objectivist ethics is fundamentally different from other ethical
systems because it is practical.

The major alternative to Objectivist ethics is altruistic ethics. Altruism holds the lives of
others above your own life. Self-sacrifice is the ultimate measure of moral achievement.
But because it holds a moral standard contrary to your life, it cannot be practiced
consistently. Moral actions are opposed to your actual self-interest.

This is, of course, the cause of the moral/practical dichotomy. Under other ethical systems,
there must always be a conflict with what's good for you, and what is moral to do. The

moral is not the practical (although it can be occasionally). In order to live your life, you
must set aside your ethical system.

One consequence of a morality not grounded in your self-interest is that virtues always
end up as duties. Even if they can be shown to achieve some valuable ends, those ends
must be justified by an ethical standard outside of your own life. The result is that the
virtues necessarily come into conflict with your own life. This stems from the fact that the
values being sought by the virtuous action necessarily come into conflict with your life.
This isn't to say they always will conflict. It may be that they often don't conflict. But
unless the virtue is grounded in your own self-interest, there will be some conflict.

So the virtues become duties. They become chores that you must obey, even though you'd
like to short-cut them on occasion. They become an impediment to your life. They become
seen as tasks that when you follow them, you lose. They become a burden on your life.
Instead of seeing them as guides to living your life, they become limitations on your
actions.

The natural consequence of upholding virtues as duties is that they will be interpreted as a
minimum set of responsibilities that you need to perform. They become a part of your life
that you try to minimize and isolate from the rest of your life. Like any burden, you seek to
overcome them with as little wasted time and energy as you can.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(3_of_13)_Active_vs
_Passive_Virtues.shtml

It's time to get to the meat and potatoes of this talk. I said there are two different
approaches to understanding virtues, and we have the tools now to see what they are. I
differentiate the two by calling one Passive Virtues and calling the other Active Virtues.

By Passive virtues, I refer to the common view that virtues are a limitation on your action.
They sit in the background of your decision making process, vetoing actions that violate
them. An example is the view of honesty as never telling a lie. In this sense, the virtue
limits the kinds of things you are allowed to say to people. When you think of something to
say, you check it against the moral rule that you shouldn't lie, and then act if everything
checks out okay.

The problem with an ethical system that tells you what not to do, is that it doesn't actually
give you any guidance to what you should do. It closes off a lot of possibilities, but it is of
no help when trying to decide among the rest of the possibilities. How do you then decide
what to do? Well, you have to have some other ethical system as a back-up. The problem
here, as with any implicit aspect of philosophy, is that you can't check your premises. By
remaining implicit, you abandon your life to whatever accidental thoughts or ideas you've
picked up over a lifetime.

Now, what about Active virtues? By Active virtues, I refer to a very different view of
virtues. In this new sense, virtues are guides to your actions. They don't just tell you what

is acceptable behavior. They show you what actions to perform in order to achieve a broad
range of values. Active virtues suggest a course of action, not just limit it. Taking the
example of honesty, an Active virtue of honesty does more than tell you not to lie. It tells
you to nurture the truth. It tells you to trust reality, and make it your friend. I'll get into
this more later.

You can think of these two kinds of virtues as street signs. Passive virtues are like stop
signs, or one-way street signs. They limit your action, and you follow them regardless of
the goal. The Active virtues are more like direction signs. "This way to the hospital".
"McDonald's up ahead". They provide guidance for achieving the goals.

Form of the Virtue

An interesting difference between Active and Passive virtues is the form in which they're
put. The Passive virtues are always in the form of "Thou shalt not...whatever". This stems
from their nature as limitations on actions. It doesn't help to try to put these Passive
virtues into a positive form, because ultimately they are limitations. For instance, you can't
say that honesty is the virtue of always telling the truth. It's meaningless. Are you going to
babble all day long saying obviously true things? No. You're going to do exactly the same
thing as if you said honesty was not telling lies. You'll limit your actions.

Active virtues are radically different both in meaning, and in form. They are in the form of
"These values require these means, so act accordingly.." Instead of saying what you
shouldn't do, they are an emphasis on a wide-set of values, and positioning yourself to
achieve them. They are useful in taking many different actions you could perform, and
selecting which satisfies your goals the best.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(4_of_13)_Life_as_a
_Process.shtml

One's view of life can alter the way you conceive of virtues. The static view of life, which
focuses on the state of your life, is very value oriented. It looks at achieving values, and not
with the means by which you achieved them. In many ways, it is a tunnel-vision view of
life, only looking at particular aspects of the life.

The static view of life can lead you to think about virtues in a limited sense. The focus will
be on individual values, and the best means of accomplishing those values. The virtues,
since they are a based on moral principles, will be useful in selecting which actions are the
best to achieve that particular goal.

Contrast this to the dynamic view of life. The dynamic view of life sees life as a process, not
a state. It views life as a continuum of purposeful action, not just as the results of the
action. Life is an ongoing process, and getting caught up with the details of any particular
moment will mean a sacrifice of your ability to live for a short-term gain in value.

The dynamic view of life doesn't aim at a point, it aims through a point. The focus is on the

process of living, and the general improvement of that process, instead of focusing on any
particular state. This means that virtues don't aim merely at a particular value or end, but
at the process of acquiring those ends. They work to improve the entire process of living.
They don't seek merely to gain a particular value, but to improve your ability to achieve
values. Values are the rewards for successful living.

The Static/Dynamic difference in viewing life adds further detail and contrast between the
Active and Passive forms of the virtues. The Passive form, with its focus on restricting your
actions, aligns well with the Static view of life. In both, the scope of action is limiting. The
virtues act as means of weeding out bad methods of achieving values. In both cases, they
are used as filters on your actions. In the Passive form of virtues, honesty will tell you not
to lie. In the Static view of life, honesty will tell you to achieve a particular value, you can't
lie. So when you fill out your job application, you won't lie about what you can do because
you know that your new company would be upset when they find out, and that you
wouldn't have the skills necessary to do your job well.

The Active virtues and the Dynamic view of life also go well together. An Active virtue is a
policy of action that improves your ability to gain certain kinds of values. The Dynamic
view of life holds the process of living as the standard of morality. In each case, the virtues
act to improve the actual process of living, in order to increase one's ability to live and
achieve values. With the example of honesty, you wouldn't just tell the truth when filling
out your job application. You'd also work to acquire the skills you want to display to your
new employer, in order to not be in a situation where you'd want to avoid the truth. In this
sense, you are enhancing your ability to act, and making it easier to practice the virtue of
honesty.

So there are two natural alignments of these views on life and virtues. The Passive virtues
and the Static view of life go hand in hand, emphasizing particular values and filtering
actions. The Active virtues and the Dynamic view of life both focus on an improvement in
the method of living.

For the rest of this discussion, I will speak of the Active and Passive virtues each in the
context of the view of life they support and fit with. So the Active form of the virtues
should be seen as an aim to improve the process of living, and the Passive form should be
seen as a selector for particular actions aimed at a specific value.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(5_of_13)_Rationalit
y.shtml

Objectivist Virtues

According to standard Objectivist literature, there are 7 major virtues, as well as a myriad
of unspecified minor virtues. The difference between a major and a minor virtue is a
difference in importance to your life. The major virtues are based on the widest of abstract
principles, and the most significant values to one's life. The Objectivist major virtues are:
Rationality, Productiveness, Justice, Integrity, Pride, Independence, Honesty. To this list,

David Kelley has added Benevolence, but I won't cover that in this talk.

The rest of this speech will be a discussion of each virtue in both the Passive and Active
forms. I'll go over what I've already discussed, showing how it applies to the major virtues.
From the more details examples, you can be the judge of whether there is merit to the
Active/Passive distinction, and how it can and should affect the way you treat virtues, as
well as live your life.

The virtues I will discuss are not in any particular order.

Virtue #1: Rationality

The first virtue I'll talk about is rationality. In The Objectivist Ethics, Rand defined
rationality as "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".

Notice the wording. She starts her definition with the word "recognition". This is
consistent with the Objectivist position that virtues are based on moral principles. The
moral principle involved is the characteristic of the virtue that differentiates it from every
other virtue. It is a critical part of the definition, and so every virtue should be partially
defined by its particular moral principle.

Remember that a definition has a genus and differentia. The genus places the concept into
a class of other concepts, while the differentia identifies the essential characteristics of the
concept that show the difference between it and the other concepts. The moral principle at
the heart of a virtue is merely the differentia in the definition. The goal of this speech is to
help fill in the details of what the genus is.

Rand uses the phrase "the recognition and acceptance of" a moral principle, when defining
the virtue. This means, simply, to understand the moral principle, and to act accordingly.
The first part is fairly straightforward. The latter part, acting accordingly, is not as simple.
I'll attempt to fill in some details here based on the Active/Passive distinction I make.

So let's hear the definition Rand gave again. Rationality is "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".

So what's the moral principle here? It's that reality is absolute, and your actions must be in
accordance with reality or they will fail. Furthermore, it is the principle that reason is your
means of grasping reality.

So that's easy. Life is purposeful action, and to make your actions effective, you have to
know understand the world around you. " Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

Remember that virtues are the means to acquire values. The moral principle tells us how
to acquire a kind of value, and the virtue shows how to practice this moral principle. What
values are dependent on rationality? Actually, all values are. In order to identify and attain

values, you need the use of reason and the acceptance of reality.

So now what? What's the "act accordingly" all about? Where do we go from there? This
greatly depends on whether you accept the Active or Passive view of virtues. Let's start
with the Passive view.

Under the Passive view, virtues are limits on your action. You can think of rationality in a
couple ways here, then. The first is that it's an acceptance that reason is the means of
gaining, so the virtue would tell you to never attempt to gain knowledge through some
other means. So when the fortune-tellers come with their crystal ball, you better not take
them seriously.

Or, you can focus on the fact that reality is absolute, and so you must never willingly evade
knowledge you have of the world. Never act on a premise you know to be false. In this
sense, Rationality is the virtue of never abdicating reason. It means never accepting the
false or arbitrary as true. Only accept information that you know to be true, and only act
on real knowledge.

But I said earlier that limits on actions can and properly always are defined by what they
are preventing. In this instance, the virtue of rationality means never be irrational. Never
act on faulty premises. Never evade knowledge. Never substitute emotion for reason.
Never accept things on faith.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(6_of_13)_Rationalit
y_as_an_Active_Virtue.shtml

So let's turn to the Active form of virtues. Now remember rationality has at its heart the
moral principle that to act and to live, we need to use reason to make our actions conform
to reality. Reason, and more generally our rational faculty, are the means we need to act in
accordance with reality, and thus act effectively to promote our lives.

So what does the Active form of rationality involve? Remember that the Active form of
virtues suggests a range of actions to further your life based on the moral principle. So let's
go through a handful of examples.

First, if reason is our means of understanding the world, we should attempt to improve
our reasoning abilities. This may involve studying the rules of logic, practicing problem-
solving, or learning effective ways of using induction. These, and many other activities can
actually enhance our reasoning skills.

Notice that Passive virtues would never call for something like this. They only come into
play when your solving a problem, and then they tell you not to do it wrong. But
strengthening your reasoning skills is an activity consistent with the moral principle, and
actually enhances your ability to act according to the moral principle.

We can also look at this from the point of view of the Static vs. Dynamic views of life. If you

hold life is a state, you'll be more concerned with particular values, such as wealth and
material goods. The Dynamic view of life, which holds that life is a process, suggests that
you should improve your ability to live. The example of enhancing your reasoning skills is
perfectly compatible with this view of life.

Let's do a second example of rationality as an Active virtue. Since the heart of the moral
principle is being able to act in accordance with reality, it makes sense that increased
information is a possible method of acting on this principle. The more you know, the
better chance you have of understanding reality, an the better chance you have of acting
consistent with it.

Another example is integration of the knowledge that you have. By combining,
categorizing, and seeing logical connections between ideas, you have an enhance ability to
grasp the world around you.

Another example is practicing to focus your mind. Complex problems not only require you
to use reason, but it requires you to have the mental conditioning to fully utilize your
reasoning ability. This could be implemented by continually learning new ideas, solving
problems, and otherwise using your mind. The idea is to keep sharp.

So concrete examples of actions you can take are varied. Go take classes at a local college.
Move to a job that challenges you, or take on more responsibility at work. Attend an
Objectivist conference. Read a book on a subject you know nothing about. Teach what you
know to someone.

The conclusion here is that Rationality as an Active virtue means much more than just not
being irrational. It includes all of the many ways you can act on the moral principle that
you need to understand the world in order to live effectively.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(7_of_13)_Productive
ness.shtml

Let's turn now to the virtue of Productiveness. Ayn Rand defined it as "the recognition of
the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life". Notice
again the term "recognition".

So again, let's identify clearly what the moral principle is here. The idea here is that values
are important and good, but they don't just come into existence. You have to act in order to
achieve them. The moral foundation is that you need values in order to survive, and that
life is a process of seeking values. So the point of this is that you need to act in order to
gain values. Productiveness is the virtue that recognizes that you need to act to gain
values.

What values does Productiveness attempt to gain? Like rationality, it is required for all
values. Any value that needs to be created or acquired needs you to take the responsibility
to go and get it.

So what does this mean in practice? Well, of course it depends on whether you accept
Passive or Active virtues. Again, we'll start with Passive virtues.

As a limit on action, Productiveness tells you not to be lazy. If you want a value, you have
to work to get it. It won't happen without your effort, so don't wait for it. Get up and
actually work to attain the value. Employ the proper means, and push yourself to achieve
the values.

The Active form of Productiveness has a larger scope. It suggests not only that you make a
habit out of achieving your goals, but it calls for you to improve your ability to achieve
those goals. Work to acquire the skills necessary for you to create values. Create
opportunities and learn to take advantage of them. Acquire the wealth you need to expand
your productive capacities. Enhance your ability to produce value.

Take some training classes in your profession. Make lists of things you'd like to
accomplish, and work on them. Learn to change the oil in your car. Learn to cook Thai
food. Work on your time management skills. Make an effort to get up early on a weekend
and do something exciting.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(8_of_13)_Justice.sht
ml

We now turn to virtue of Justice. Ayn Rand defines it as "the recognition of the fact that
you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature". The
moral principle here is that men are a part of reality, and we must identify their nature
just as we must identify any aspect of reality, and act accordingly.

This of course means taking into account everything you know about a person, but
additionally there's one aspect of man's nature that makes him profoundly different from
anything else-his moral nature. It is this moral nature that is so critical to identify, and
which thoughts of Justice have always revolved around. In other words, recognizing that a
man has a great memory or likes the color blue is not the critical part of Justice. Justice
centers on his moral stature. Is the man virtuous? Does he seek life-affirming values? Is he
a potential benefit to your life? Or is the man evil? Does he seek to harm others? Does he
seek values that are destructive to his own life? Does he act on irrational premises? Is he
dishonest?

This information is important because of its ability to show the motivations of the other
person. By identifying the moral nature of another human, you can identify whether he is a
friend or enemy. Will he likely be a benefit to your life, or a threat to it? Are his actions
self-destructive, or his he someone you'd want to do business with? Is the person someone
you will trust your life or property to?

Now again, we ask what values does this virtue attempt to gain and/or keep? The scope is
pretty large here as well. Justice is required to gain and/or keep all values within a social

context. Most important of these is the values that involve other people. This means
wealth that you invest, friendships and romances, time and energy put into joint projects,
etc.

So how do we act accordingly? The Passive form Justice is similar to that of rationality. It
holds that you should never ignore facts of reality. If the person is a compulsive liar, don't
trust them. If they're irresponsible, don't invest in their business. If they're malicious,
don't interact with them.

But what about the flip side of Justice? How do you treat the good? Again, the Passive form
is in terms of a limit. Don't ignore the good deeds of others, especially when they benefit
you. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Don't get angry and yell at a loved one. Don't treat
a better man equal to a lesser man. The Passive form says to never benefit evil, and never
punish the good.

The Active form is very different. Like rationality, it says you should improve your ability
to identify the nature of men. Work at understanding them. Integrate the knowledge you
have. Try to understand their motivations. Try to understand morality, so you can
properly judge what you do know. In all these ways, you improve your ability to see the
nature of men, and to treat them accordingly.

But there's more. The Active form suggests that you value proper treatment of man
according to his moral nature. This is when the term 'justice' is used as a value. Men
should be treated according to their nature, and Justice is an attempt to make this the rule,
instead of the exception. To not only have yourself act according to this nature, but to seek
the same treatment from other people. Remember, it's the moral principle that men
should be treated according to their nature.

In other words, you don't stop at treating others how they should be treated. You try to get
other people as well. If a man has benefited your life greatly, you would want everyone to
treat him well. You should be angered or upset if other people treat him poorly. Similarly,
if a man is a threat to your life, you don't want other people pampering him and treating
him well. So the Active form of Justice involves trying to make the application of this virtue
universal. This is an attempt to create a just environment. This is based on the same moral
principle. That men should be treated according to their nature.

Concrete examples of justice are also varied. You may talk to someone about their actions,
determining if they knew they had screwed up, and letting them know you don't agree. It
can mean going out and thanking someone who's benefited you, maybe with dinner or a
gift. It can mean letting others know that your relative never pays his debts. It can mean
telling your lover how much she means to you.

Justice is a huge topic, so I'll end it on that note.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(9_of_13)_Integrity.s
html

Now the virtue of Integrity. It was defined by Rand as "the recognition that you cannot
fake your consciousness" and that man "may permit no breach between...his life and his
convictions".

The moral principle here is that you also are a part of reality, and have an identity. It is the
understanding that you have the ability to shape your moral character. That you can live
by principles, and thus understand yourself and your actions better. It is the idea that you
are what you do. That your actions form your character. Your identity is knowable, and
that you must live with that knowledge.

What's the value aimed at here? It's the value of a clear and clean moral character. To
know who you are, and to make who you are a better person.

The virtue is normally seen as doing what you know is right. This, of course, can be
phrased as never doing what you know is wrong. This is the Passive form of the virtue.
Passive Integrity means never being immoral. It means, when you identify a moral
principle, never act against it. Never compromise your values. In Objectivist ethics, it
would mean never knowingly act irrationally, and never sacrifice.

The Active form is different, of course. It aims at the unified, moral self-imagine. It involves
identifying moral principles, and learning how to act accordingly. It means identifying the
good, and seeking it out. It means aiming for moral self-perfection.

So go out and pay back that debt you owe. Fulfill that promise you made. If you've lied to
someone, tell them the truth. Make up for any mistakes you made. But also vow to never
make mistakes. Take your responsibilities seriously. Make a habit of following through on
your plans and projects, starting with one your working on now.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(10_of_13)_Pride.sht
ml

Now let's go to the virtue of Pride. Rand describes Pride as "the recognition of the fact that
you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned".

The moral principle here is that you need to want to live. You need to make your life the
ultimate value, and to appreciate it as such. You need to like who you are, and think of
yourself as worthy of living. You need to trust yourself to do the right thing. You need to
believe in your ability to live effectively. Most important of all, though, is that you have to
earn all of this. It can't be faked. You need to be trustworthy. You need to be effective at
living. You need to make your life valuable.

The value being pursued here is self-esteem. Pride aims at the value of loving yourself and
your life. The importance of self-esteem should be easily seen. Without valuing your own

life, no other values are possible. You will lack motivation or will. You will attack yourself,
instead of seeking values. Your entire life will be undercut by your view of it as an
unworthy task.

So how does one practice Pride? In the Passive view, you would objectively recognize your
moral worth. You would accept your strengths and abilities. You would see
accomplishments for what they are, and focus on your good qualities. In other words, you
will not ignore your good qualities. You will not attack yourself without reason. You will
not attempt any undue modesty.

Now the Active form of Pride is interesting. Not only does it tell you to take credit for your
accomplishments, and see the good in you, but it also tells you go get out there and
accomplish things. If you want self-esteem, earn it! If you want to feel you're capable of
dealing with your life, your job, your relationship, learn to be capable. If you want to feel
that you can accomplish big goals, go out and do it. If you want to feel that you are a
morally good person worthy of happiness, become one by practicing the virtue of
Integrity.

If you want pride, do something worth being proud about. Pride as a virtue demands that
you prove yourself to yourself. It involves self-improvement of every sort. It means making
your life glorious and wonderful, so you will enjoy it. It means improving your ability to
live, and your will to live it.

Become the person you've always wanted to be. Take something you enjoy, like playing
the piano, and learn to excel at it. Finish your project at work ahead of schedule. Try a new
sport, and put everything you've got into it. Write articles for SoloHQ. Make a bunch of
money.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(11_of_13)_Independ
ence.shtml

The next virtue is Independence. Rand said it is "the recognition of the fact that yours is
the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it- that no substitute can
do your thinking"

The moral principle here is that your life is your own, and you're the only one that can live
it. It means that you need to act directly, and not attempt to get or let other people do your
living for you. It's the recognition that life is purposeful action, but it needs to be your
purpose and your action, or it's not really living.

The value aimed at here is the value of living your life. Nobody can provide you with this
value. Their interference can only prevent you from achieving this value.

So what does the Passive form of this virtue say? First, it says you should never let others
do your thinking for you. You should not accept ideas from them that are incompatible
with what you know. Neither should you accept information from them that they have no

ability to know. You shouldn't allow them to choose your values for you, and you should
never accept their judgment above your own.

Independence is also seen in the material world. Financial independence means providing
the material wealth that you need in order to live. You should not allow someone else to
provide you with the means of survival. You should earn your values, never taking the
unearned from others. You can trade value for value, but you cannot allow someone else to
do your living for you.

The Active form of Independence includes all this, but more. It tells you that you should
attempt to gain the ability to be more independent in your thinking. This means
understanding more about the world, and having more information, so you need to rely on
others less. It means improving your ability to think and reason. It means learning enough
to know how to double-check information, and when it's okay to accept information from
others. It means understanding philosophy and ethics, in order to come to your own
conclusions about which values to pursue, and what is good and bad for your life.

It can also mean acquiring financial independence, as well as securing it. It means not only
getting a job that provides you with the ability to live, but saving enough money to cover
emergency situations. It means growing your employment opportunities.

Independence also means looking to yourself when you want something. It means
becoming used to the idea that you are your own provider of values. It means learning to
rely on your own judgment as your primary means of gaining knowledge, and putting
other people in their place as secondary options.

So you should figure out what part of your life is overly dependent on other people, and
change it. Fill out your own tax forms. Learn to do your own laundry. Learn enough about
your car to understand what the mechanic is talking about. Read the voting pamphlet and
figure out what you're voting on. Figure out how to find information on your own by going
to a library or searching the web. And make a habit of looking it up for yourself.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(12_of_13)_Honesty.
shtml

The last virtue I want to talk about is that of Honesty. Rand described Honesty as "the
recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value".

The moral principle here is that reality is real, and that to gain values, you have to act
according to it. That to live, you have to have a respect and working relationship with
reality, and what is true. False ideas, if acted upon, will not produce the intended results.
Any falsehood that you accept will hinder your efforts at living. Any falsehoods you
promote will put you in conflict with reality.

The value that honesty seeks to gain is the value of a life that is at peace with reality. It is
the value of relying on the truth and what is real to live your life, and never creating a

conflict between your actions reality. This harmony with the truth allows you to focus only
on what is real, and not spend time and energy on the unreal. It provides you with the
ability to trust reality and the truth, and never create a conflict between your life and
reality.

It is also required in order to seek any values. Only be acting in accordance with reality can
you expect to achieve your ends. The ideas you act on must be true or you will fail.

The Passive form of this virtue says you should never lie. You shouldn't lie to yourself
because reality doesn't care what lies you tell, and will keep on functioning the same
regardless. Which means, you'll only hurt yourself by deceiving yourself.

It also says never lie to others. Lies generally need to be covered with lies, causing webs of
deceit that require a lot of mental energy to keep up. Also, you begin to fear people who
are smart and rational, for fear that they'll discover something wrong. You make virtues
appear to be vices, and you seek men of lower quality to make it easier to get away with
your lives. And of course, you always have to keep two ideas in your mind. What is real,
and what am I saying is real?

The Active form of honesty is different. It also says you shouldn't lie, but it asks that you
nurture your relationship with reality and the truth. In this view, the truth is your friend.
You should learn to trust it, and make it your nature to deal and think in terms of what's
real.

You should also be open about the truth. The truth is not something that should be ignored
or kept hidden. By being open with others, you provide them information that they can act
upon. Instead of having to guess motives and opinions, you can come to terms with the
facts.

Of course, telling the truth is not so easy if you have something to hide. So Honesty
suggests another kind of action. It suggests you never act in a way that makes you want to
hide or avoid the truth. Don't have an affair with the secretary if you wouldn't want your
wife to find out. To treat the truth as your friend, you need to make it your friend. Act in a
way that encourages you to be honest.

An example I know is a friend of mine who was considering working part time at another
company then her main work. She thought that her boss might get angry if he were to find
out about the situation, since they might be considered competition. Practicing the virtue
of honesty, she went into her boss's office, and told him exactly what she was considering,
and what his opinion on it was. Not only was he understanding, but he gained trust in his
employee, knowing that she would be responsible and clear with him. In this way, she kept
her commitment to the truth, and made it her ally instead of her enemy.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Virtuous_Living_(13_of_13)_Conclusi
on.shtml

That's the major Objectivist virtues. In each of these cases we can see the moral principle
that defines the virtue, and we can see that it can be interpreted in a couple of ways.

The first way is the Passive form of a virtue. It is characterized as a limit on action. It is
usually applied when acting to achieve a particular value, so only suggests a specific
means. It is in the form "Thou shalt not...". It is compatible with the Static view of life,
which holds life as a state, and focuses on just values.

The Active form of virtues are characterized by suggesting a whole range of actions that
further the moral principle. This form requires the virtue to be based on a moral principle,
as opposed to a moral rule. Which means they always seek some ends through a causal
means. It is in the form "These values require these means, so act accordingly."

Active virtues aren't just used to seek particular values, but they aim to further your ability
to seek those values. They can be thought of as a superset of the Passive virtues, because
they still require you to use the proper means and avoid the improper means of achieving
goals. But they're wider in scope in that they work to enhance the general means of
achieving the values.

Active virtues are compatible with the dynamic view of life. The dynamic view of life is the
view that life is a process, and the ability to live is an essential moral goal. The virtues seek
not only to achieve values, but to acquire better means at achieving those values. So the
virtues enhance one's ability to live.

The Active virtues are more consistent with the moral principles involved, because they
seek not only to use the moral principles when needed, but also to improve the ability to
use them. If the moral principles state that certain means are required to achieve certain
ends, it makes sense that you'd want to improve your ability to employ those means.

By now the Active/Passive distinction should be clear, and hopefully the evidence is firmly
in favor of the Active virtues. Is the distinction useful? If accepted, it provides guidance to
living your life that was unavailable before. Further, the major Objectivist virtues have
been reevaluated according to this distinction, and we can now use them to live our lives
more effectively.

Thank you.

And one on benevolence.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Unrugged_Individualism_Reviewed.sht
ml

David Kelley wrote Unrugged Individualism to be "the first comprehensive Objectivist
analysis of benevolence". In this short monograph (59 pages), he makes an excellent start.
He first severs the ties between benevolence and altruism, showing them to be unrelated.
He then goes on to show how benevolence is perfectly consistent with an ethics of self-
interest.

100

The next part of the book is a more difficult project to undertake, and the groundbreaking
part. Kelley attempts to show that benevolence is not only a virtue in Objectivist
philosophy, but that it should be considered a major virtue. He says, "A virtue is a major
one if and to the extent that the values at which it aims, and the facts on which it is based,
are fundamental ones."

In order to make a case for benevolence as a major virtue, he has to break out of the
conventional model of benevolence. The conventional model sees benevolence as a
response to something bad. If a loved one dies, you provide a shoulder to cry on. If
someone is starving, you give them some food. Kelley shows that this narrow view of
benevolence is consistent with a malevolent universe premise. Objectivism rejects this
depressing view of the world. So if the world isn't mostly pain and suffering, a virtue of
easing that pain and suffering could only be a minor virtue.

Kelley resolves this in what I consider the most significant part of the book. In a section
titled "Benevolence and Productiveness", he shows that benevolence is far more wide
reaching than the conventional model. In this section, he draws a parallel between
benevolence and productiveness that sets the stage for a more detailed analysis of each of
the "benevolent virtues".

The argument is that benevolence can and should be seen as a form of productivity in
social relationships. Values we gain in a social context, like trade and friendship, do not
present themselves to us automatically. If we want to trade with others, we need to
establish a relationship with them. If we want to have friends, we need to go out and meet
people. It's not enough to be willing to take advantage of opportunities. We need to
actually go and create them.

Kelley defines benevolence as follows: "Benevolence is a commitment to achieving the
values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential
trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence, and individuality, and the
harmony between their interests and ours."

By recognizing that other people have their own needs and desires, we can create
opportunities for ourselves to interact positively with them. You can build trading
relationships, which allows many future trading opportunities. If you make it fun, pleasant
or interesting for others to interact with you, they'll be more inclined to do so in the
future.

Does this argument stand up to the major virtue analysis? What values does it aim at? Well
you could say that stores and restaurants are going to trade with you either way because
they want your business. But at a minimum, you can see that it affects your job
opportunities, friendships and romantic relationships, and any other activity involving
other people. It's fair enough to conclude that the values aimed at are significant.

What about the other criteria? Is the virtue based on fundamental facts? The facts that it's
based on are that every person has their own goals, dreams, values, and beliefs. Each

101

person is an end in themselves. They have their own lives to live. And if you want to deal
with them, you have to make it worth their while. That's a pretty significant set of facts.
You can make up your own mind whether benevolence is a major virtue.

The parallel between benevolence and productivity is the key insight in this monograph.
It's only by showing how significant benevolence is to our lives that the topic is even
worth exploring. Unfortunately, I don't think Kelley went far enough.

In comparing benevolence to justice, he says, "Justice is a form of the 'It is' principle. Its
focus is on the actual. Benevolence is a 'What if?' virtue whose focus is the potential of
others." The point he's making is that benevolence is a kind of productivity, whereas
justice is not. Justice is about evaluation, whereas benevolence is about seeking values.

That's not exactly right. All of the virtues are both evaluative and value seeking. A virtue is
based on a moral principle that shows how a range of values can be achieved by a kind of
action. Rationality is based on the principle that to act effectively, you have to use mental
process that provides results consistent with reality. Honesty is based on the principle that
only what's real has consequences, and focusing on the unreal can impair your ability to
act. In every virtue, there's a principle showing the causal connection between actions and
values.

So all virtues are evaluative. They're all 'It is' principles. Even benevolence is an
identification of the values and wants of other people. You don't just act cheerful. You
determine what kind of actions/attitude would be appreciated.

Similarly, all virtues are value seeking. Each of them are "What if?" virtues. Each of the
moral principles can be seen as a guide to how to improve your ability to gain values. Just
as benevolence creates opportunities for values, so honesty can create opportunities for
value by emphasizing the need to properly communicate what's real, instead of what
people want to hear. In that way, honesty creates the opportunity to address real issues
and seek real values.

I address this issue more in my article

Virtuous Living: Active vs. Passive Virtues

. In this

article, and those that follow, I show that each of the virtues can be seen as either "active"
of "passive". The passive view can be seen as doing the minimum necessary to obey the
virtue. The passive form of benevolence is being civil to those you work with, and avoiding
hurting those we benefit from. Like all passive virtues, its focus is on avoiding harm.

The active view of virtues maintains a value-orientation. Instead of avoiding bad actions, it
shows that courses of actions can actually lead to values, or at least make them easier. So
rationality is not just about avoiding irrationality. It's also about acquiring the mental
skills necessary to effectively engage with reality. Justice is not about judging people and
maybe condemning them as evil. It's about creating the conditions necessary for a just
society, enabling the pursuit of values in a social environment. And of course benevolence
is not just avoiding getting people angry at you. It's about expanding your opportunities to
interact positively with others.

102

Kelley took a powerful idea, and unnecessarily limited it to benevolence instead of
applying it to all the virtues. This doesn't really subtract from the initial brilliant insight.
When it comes to benevolence, the focus of this monograph, he's done an admirable job.
And by showing an analysis of an active form of a virtue, he thoroughly conveys that
Objectivism is a philosophy for living. Bravo.

Harmony of Interests

One of the big issues in ethics is how we should interact with other people. In a more
conventional ethics, other people are the center of the ethical universe. When there's nobody
around, you have the problem that ethics doesn't really give you guidance. Or perhaps you
need to use a different standard when you're alone. But for reasons already explained,
Objectivism requires a single standard of value, your life. So the question is, how do other
people fit into your ethical framework. How should you treat them? How should you interact
with them?

This thread isn't aimed at answering how we interact with other people, but in discussing the
context in which we make that decision. We have to remember that our own lives are our
ethical standards, and our method of interacting with other people is going to be dependent on
how they fit into that picture. If they're fundamentally a threat to our lives, we shouldn't be
nice to them or try to interact with them in a positive way. If they're of enormous benefit to
our lives, we shouldn't hurt or insult them. So to understand general principles of social
interaction, we have to establish the proper context.

The first general question is whether there is a fundamental harmony, or disharmony, of
interests between men. If the interests between men are fundamentally opposed, then one
man's gain is another man's loss. We'd be locked in a battle where the only way to get ahead is
to destroy the people around you. This is a pretty common view of man, and leads to the
belief that someone who's "selfish" is necessarily gaining by hurting others. With that kind of
view, the only way for people to get along is through constant sacrifice. It would mean that
people need to resist their desires to get ahead in life or they'll make enemies of everyone.

One common belief behind this "disharmony of interests" belief is the idea of zero-sum
wealth. The idea is that there is a limited about of wealth in the world, and the only way to get
some is to take it from the "pool" of wealth in existence. But of course, if you take some out
of this common pool, you leave less for everyone else. Your gain is their loss.

Objectivism rejects this zero-sum view of wealth. Wealth is produced, not just distributed. An
easy example is the fact that we have computers today, and no such thing existed a hundred
years ago. We didn't take the computers from some pool of existing wealth...we created it. We
take what is essentially useless, silicon, and create incredibly useful tools out of it. All wealth
is like this. To consume, the wealth needs to be produced first. We create the wealth, not out
of nothing, but out of less useful things.

The biggest problem with the zero-sum world is that it almost requires that the wealth exists
in an already packaged product available by nature to us. Take oil, for instance. Imagine we

103

start running out (we're not even close), and so one person's gain starts becoming another
person's loss. The question of whether there's a problem can't be answered in a void. You can't
compare whether it'd be better to not have people using oil, or allowing them to.

The alternative is really between a world where we get none of the benefits of other people,
and one in which we do. You can't hypothesize a world where other people produce the oil for
you, pipeline it to your home, build you a car, build you roads, and everything else except use
oil. To say that there's a fundamental disharmony of interests means that people are
necessarily a drain on your life. It means that for you to thrive, you must do it at the expense
of other people, and you'd be better off without them.

Obviously Objectivism rejects this idea. We accept that instead of a disharmony of interests,
there really is a harmony of interests. In a market-based society, one man's gain is also the
gain of another man, and often to many men. When someone makes it rich running an airline
company, they don't just take your money from you. They provide you with a service you
wouldn't have otherwise. And since you're voluntarily trading one value for another, there's no
reason to believe you're losing. The free-market allows both parties of a transaction to win.
By taking something that is more valuable for one party, and trading it with what's more
valuable to the other party, both sides gain from it. In other words, your gain is beneficial to
others as well.

There are lots of other reasons to support the fundamental harmony of interests. Concepts like
economies of scale, and economies of scope show that much more wealth can be produced
when people cooperate with one another. The extent of technology is not limited by what a
single person can understand, but is multiplied by having a large population with specialized
knowledge. There are things like talent, foresight, and genius that everyone benefits from in a
free-market, and if you were living alone you would miss out on. In countless ways our lives
are improved by the existence of other people.

And this is just an abstract sense of the idea. In more concrete terms, our lives are enriched by
others in more personal ways. We have loves, friendships, business partners, teachers, role
models, etc. We gain different values from each of these relationships.

Now it's obvious to most people that sometimes you don't get what you want when someone
else does. If someone else wins the lottery, that means you didn't. If someone else gets that
promotion at work, then you don't. It's from this perspective that it's often believed that a
disharmony of interests must exist. After all, if one gains, the other loses. You can't please
everyone.

Rand argued that there was no conflict of interests between rational men. This is a powerful
statement, and if understood can provide a number of insights. For instance, when men are
irrational, they come into conflict all the time. If I want to have your car, without paying for
it, we're going to have a conflict. When men are irrational, there whims guide them, and of
course their whims can contradict one another.

104

Notice she wrote of "interests", not "desires". Nobody could make the claim that one's desires
will always mesh with other people. If you want something, and they want it to, and only one
of you can have it, there would be a conflict. Even between rational men. Instead of
discussing desires, she wanted to keep the discussion objective. What's actually in your
interest. And is there a conflict between them and other people? At a fundamental level, no.
That should be easy to see. A person living alone in the woods won't have nearly the life-
expectancy or available actions in their life that someone has in civilization. For more on that
topic, see her essay titled "The Conflicts of Men's Interests".

So instead of viewing men's lives as being fundamentally in opposition, Objectivism
recognizes that they are fundamentally in harmony, or at least can be under the right
conditions. We're better off living in free society than with no society. One man's gain is
usually a benefit to the people around him, especially his customers. Cooperation and
peaceful interaction are beneficial to our lives. We don't just make the best of a bad situation
(having to deal with other people). We recognize it as a supremely beneficial value in our
lives.

The Trader Principle

The trader principle is the basic Objectivist principle of interaction between people. It's a
product of many different ideas, including the harmony of interests, the virtues of
independence, justice, benevolence, and pride. It says that the proper way to deal with other
people is through the principle of trade.

As discussed in the harmony of interests thread, trade allows both participant of an interaction
to gain from it. Instead of having a lose-lose or win-lose situation, it allows both sides to win.
This is one of the key criteria behind the harmony of interests, and a good enough reason to
establish the trader principle in practice. By maintaining the harmony of interests, we continue
to gain massive amounts of value from other people. If instead we act under a principle of
parasitism, where we try to gain at the expense of others, we'll quickly lose our opportunities
to interact with them. Our desires would come into conflict with their interests. The bigger the
conflict, the more adversarial the relationship.

In the section on politics, we'll discuss a specific kind of parasitism, which involves using
violent force or fraud to benefit at the expense of other people. This not only destroys the
harmony of interest, but makes your life a threat to theirs, and justifies their use of violent
retaliation. In fact, as I'll argue, it doesn't just make it permissible to use force against you. It
creates a moral requirement on their part. If life is their standard, then they'll need to remove
you as a threat to it.

But force is not the only form of parasitism. It's possible to use persuasion to achieve it. One
method to do this is through guilt. They can try to persuade you that if you don't give them
money to them, you'll be morally wrong and not a nice person. By trying to persuade you that
the right thing to do is to sacrifice to them, they achieve the same purpose. But again, a
disharmony of interests is created. The more you give, the more it hurts you. And since it's

105

fundamentally based on persuasion, you can always change your mind about it. That gives a
very good reason to not try to live the life of a parasite. You may get a free ride for a short
while, but your hold on them is weak. You're gaining value from them at a cost, which means
they have a strong incentive to dump you.

Contrast that with the trader principle. You gain your values from other people, but you make
it worth their while. Since they benefit from the transaction, you have a good reason to
believe they'll want to continue with that relationship. And almost as important, you're relying
on their best qualities, not their worst. A parasite has to trick and deceive someone into giving
them values. They have to worry that the person will eventually come to their senses, or that
they have enough people to mooch off of in case one stops. A trader seeks the best in men.
The more intelligent and clear-sighted they are, the better the opportunity for a mutually
beneficial trade.

There are other advantages to being a trader. Independence is a big one. If you learn to
provide value to others, you can trade with anyone. You don't have to rely on their good will
or friendships. You have a better shot relying on their self-interest. And that certainly makes
persuasion a lot easier. Contrast this to the parasite, for instance a son who relies on his
parents for their money. He's not able to make his own investments, or plan for the future. He
relies on their judgment to maintain their financial situation. As long as he uses need to keep
them paying, he has to keep himself near the poverty line, or at least in a situation where he
can't easily take care of himself. And he's completely reliant on the good graces of those two.
His life belongs to them, whether they know it or not. But he knows it, and has to act
accordingly. He's chaining himself to them and their good fortune, and so instead of asking
what's in his own interest, he must always ask what will keep them happy first.

Another advantage to the trader principle is that it creates future opportunities for trade. There
was a show a few years ago called Star Trek, Deep Space Nine. There's a race of businessmen
who constantly cheat their customers and business associates. They wanted and worshipped
the win-lose situation. The obvious question is, why would anyone ever deal with them a
second time? Fortunately, fiction doesn't have to be consistent. But if they had understood the
trader principle, every exchange would be a benefit to both parties. People would find that
they benefit from the business relationships, and the more they benefit, the more they'd want
to continue with them. Word of mouth would be positive, with customers telling other
customers that they should try them out. The trader principle rejects the idea of an isolated
business transaction as if it had no effect on future possibilities. Instead, it grasps the long
term benefits of positive interactions.

The trade principle is not just for business, though. It's a general way of dealing with other
people. That means personal relationships as well. By offering value for value, you keep
everyone interested in continuing the relationship. Imagine a romantic relationship. In one
scenario, you try to get the most you can for the least cost. You ignore your partner, don't
bother thinking about them, and otherwise offer little or nothing in return for what you get.
How long will they stick with the relationship? How much effort will they put in to making
you happy? Contrast this to the thoughtful person who puts real energy in making the partner

106

happy. Maybe there are spontaneous gifts, planned trips, listening, shared adventures, etc. By
trading value for value, you're not just securing the relationship, but you're improving it. The
values you gain are higher.

There's this contrast between the person who tries to get something for nothing (or little), and
the person who earns it. The person earning it can take pride in his accomplishments, and
know that he deserves what he gets. His efforts are directed towards enhancing his life,
instead of minimizing his efforts. The trader principle is just one aspect of this. The trader
seeks to gain values from other people, but doing it by offering his own values. He doesn't
have to trick or deceive others. He wants them to see clearly the value he offers. He's
concerned with enhancing the values he gains, and securing them in the future. The values he
gains from other people are a source of pride in himself, because he knows he's earned them
and traded fairly with them.

The trader does not seek the unearned, and doesn't grant it to others. He lives his own life, and
deals with other people as independent human beings with their own goals and interests. He
recognizes that his interests are in harmony with theirs, and seeks win-win situations where
everyone benefits. He sees further then the immediate transaction and understand how being a
benefit to others is a good way to benefit himself.

Morality as a guide to living

To better understand Objectivist ethics, there's an important distinction that needs to be made
between its approach and many other ethical systems. There are two basic approaches to
morality. One is limit on one's choices, and the other is a guide to living.

The first view is that morality is a limit on your actions. It sets boundaries for you. Don't
murder people. Don't steal from people. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't speak unless spoken to.
It tells you the kinds of things that are bad to do. But it doesn't provide you with much in the
way of guidance picking between the remaining choices.

There are many examples of morality as a limit on actions. Let me go through some.

We've already discussed intrinsic values earlier. Since intrinsic values can't be rationally
compared, they don't offer much in the way of guidance. But many of these intrinsic values
set limitations on your actions, which is their real function. One of my favorite to discuss is
vegetarianism. By elevating animal life to some unconnected value, it basically sets up a rule
that tells you to not eat meat. It's not that vegetarians actively go out seeking to improve the
lives of animals (some might, but it's not necessary). The intrinsic value there just limits the
kinds of things they can do.

Since virtue ethics are often just a set of rules to follow, treating kinds of actions as intrinsic
values, the same criticism applies to these. So a man of honor must keep his promises, no
matter what. He's limited by not being able to choose to break those promises. Honesty would
demand someone to never tell a lie, removing those as options. The point here isn't that
cutting off particular options is bad in itself. But if that's all the ethical system does, you're

107

still left without a means of choosing between the remaining options. You cut off some, but
you can't prioritize the rest. It's an additional problem in that if you find that you must violate
one of these rules, you don't have a means of choosing the least important.

Another example is a morality that is only a partial guide to your actions. For instance,
altruism might suggest that if you see someone who needs help, the moral thing is to jump in
and help. But it doesn't tell you much else. It doesn't inform you on what kind of pleasures
you should pursue, what kind of job, what you should do on your free time, or any number of
other choices. So a moral code may provide guidance under specific circumstances, but
otherwise leave you without a moral compass.

The Objectivist ethics sees morality as a guide to living your life. The point of it is to provide
you with the tools you need to make decisions. To the extent that it can't be used for that, the
moral code is defective. When understanding an ethical system, it's important to look at this
as a benchmark for the value of that system. Does it provide guidance? Or is it just an
obstacle?

At any point, with the Objectivist ethics, you can stop and say "what should I do now?".
Because life is your standard, you can think of possibilities that enhance your life. You can
pick which is the optimal one, and pursue it. You're not stuck wandering. You don't have to
leave it to your whims or your implicit philosophy to decide for you. You're able to think it
through and pursue your goals.

Individualism Vs. Collectivism

There are two basic ways of understanding the relationship between individuals in a group.
The first way is individualism, which states that each individual is acting on his or her own,
making their own choices, and to the extent they interact with the rest of the group, it's as
individuals. Collectivism is the second way, and it views the group as the primary entity, with
the individuals lost along the way.

Objectivism supports individualism in this sense. In a different sense, individualism is meant
to be whether the individual is different from everyone else, or whether he makes up his own
mind about things, or what-not. But in the individualist-collectivist sense of the term,
individualism just means that the individual is a separate entity, making his own choices,
thinking his own thoughts, and responsible for his own choices.

Collectivism views it in some other way. It sees the group as the important element, and
individuals are just members of the group. The group has its own values somehow different
from those of the individual members. The group thinks its own thoughts. Instead of judging
the group as a bunch of individuals interacting, it judges the group as a whole, and views the
individuals as just members of the group.

Collectivism might sound strange at first. I've known people who reject it as a straw man, a
made up argument that's easy to attack. So let's give some reasons why people might accept it.

108

First, there's knowledge. Think about it in a few ways. First, how much of what you know did
you learn from other people? That's taken to mean that nobody is truly an individual. Second,
when coming up with an idea in a group, there's usually an exchange. It wasn't one person
who invented the idea from scratch, but a group effort. So again, it's seen as the group that
made the decision. Third, you're a product of your culture, right? Your outlook on life is at
first very much dominated by the views of the people around you. If you're raised in a
Christian home, you will very likely believe in Christianity.

Of course, the individualists sees this all in a different light. It's true you learned from others,
but your mind had to grasp it. It's true that the invention took more than one person interacting
to form, but each step along the way was made by individuals. It's true that you grow up
within a culture, but you're free to accept or reject it. Being a part of these groups doesn't
make you act the way you do. That's up to you.

Another reason for collectivism is the idea of mob mentality. When people are in a group,
they sometimes stop thinking and just go with the wishes of their peers. Objectivists refer to
this as second-handedness in a more general sense. But when someone is unwilling to think
for themselves, and accept the wishes of the people around them, it looks and smells a lot like
a collective. The only flaw is that the individuals are choosing to go with their peers, and they
can also choose not to.

So do people actually view others in terms of collectivism? We need some examples.

An enormously significant example is that of racism. Racism is the view that there is a race of
people, usually determined by skin color and appearance, and that they're all basically the
same. Racism is fundamentally collectivist. Instead of viewing individuals by their own
actions, values, or attributes, the group is judged and the outcome is arbitrarily assigned to the
individuals. In other words, you get praised or blamed not by your own actions, but by the
actions of someone else (or more than one person). This is a huge injustice, and turns the
whole concept of moral judgment upside down.

There are other forms of collectivism. Any time where the group is considered to have a life
of it's own outside of the individuals. An easy example is a nation. People often attribute
qualities, values, etc., to an entire nation. And the nation often claims to have values that are
different from the individuals.

Another example which I like to use but upsets some people is marriage. Marriage is often
treated as a collective. This is why you hear things like "making the marriage work", as if it
had a life of its own and the husband and wife are just there to satisfy it. What this example
illustrates is that the collective need not be big. It's really a perspective issue. If you see the
husband and wife interacting, then you can say things like "if you want to get along better,
you should do this". But when the marriage becomes a value in itself, and the husband and
wife are told to sacrifice in order to make it work, then they are acting as collectivists.

Ethically speaking, there are a number of problems with collectivism. For instance, because
the collective is seen as having an importance higher than the individuals that make it up,

109

those same individuals are asked to sacrifice for it. It is created into an intrinsic value, and
destroys one's ability to rationally pursue one's own self-interest.

It also interferes with justice. Justice is concerned with making moral judgments about other
people and acting accordingly. But collectivism destroys proper moral judgment by
attributing value choices to the whole group, instead of the person making the choice.

Individualism is the proper approach to this problem. Moral judgments are made by moral
agents. The person making the decision gets credit or blame for it. Values are agent-relative,
and the person makes his choices by seeing how the value impacts his life. It is the individual
that ethics is concerned with, and collectivism just obscures this point.

Altruism

I've spent most of the discussions so far focusing on what the right approach is to philosophy,
with only showing the wrong approach as a contrast. But in Objectivist ethics, there really
needs to be some discussion of altruism because of its dominance and it's opposition to
Objectivist ethics. It's a huge topic, so I only want to address some of the bigger features.

First, altruism is technically a philosophy that upholds other people as that standard of value.
What should be immediately obvious is that if others are the standard of value, then their
interests are more important than your own. This means that altruism is an ethics of self-
sacrifice. Your own life is always put below the interests of others.

Altruism doesn't just occasionally come into conflict with your self-interest. It actually judges
your moral worth by how much you sacrifice. See this article:

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Altruism_and_Integrity.shtml

Some people dismiss the Objectivist critique of altruism by proclaiming that altruism
doesn't really require self-sacrifice. It's just about helping people, and any call for a
sacrifice is just an interpretation, and not actually part of the ethics. We can counter these
arguments in a number of ways. We can show that any moral standard that's different
from self-interest, will necessarily conflict with self-interest. And so, upholding altruism
consistently would require self-sacrifice.

That's a good argument, but they shouldn't be let off the hook so easily. It's not just that
there's an occasional conflict, in which altruism might require some small sacrifice. In fact,
often the moral praiseworthiness of an action is judged by how much of a sacrifice is being
made. If a poor man gives $10,000 to charity, he's considered praiseworthy. If a rich man
gives the same amount, he's considered stingy. Why is that? If helping other people is the
goal, certainly they've each helped other people the same amount. Why is the poor man
considered noble, and the rich man considered evil? Is this accidental or essential to
altruism? To know this, we have to examine the cause.

There's this common view of morality that you only really show your moral worth when
it's difficult to. If an action obviously benefits you, it's easy to do and doesn't require much

110

or any integrity. It's when there are serious costs to an action that you learn whether a
person is serious or not. A man may be honest when he's got nothing to lose, but it's
different when there's a cost involved. If he knows that telling the truth would cost him his
relationship, for instance, he might choose to lie. It's like being courageous. In times of
peace, courage is easy. But when things get difficult, brave men distinguish themselves by
sticking to their values.

It's the character of a person that's being judged. Specifically, it's the person's integrity.
Integrity is the virtue of practicing what you preach or sticking to your guns. You witness
integrity most clearly when someone has to stand up for what he believes, instead of
taking the path of least resistance. When Howard Roark continues building his buildings
despite the criticism and abuse, he's showing his integrity.

Well, integrity is just one of many virtues. And yet, often moral judgments are rooted in
the concept of integrity. Under altruism, actions are considered to be moral based how
hard they are to do. Being kind when things are going well for you is easy; but when you're
having a hard time, it's exceptional. Showing mercy to the good is easy, but showing it to
your enemies is noble.

As you can see, this idea of tough moral choices is compatible with altruism. In fact, it's
difficult to see any difference. When the difficulty of a choice is the criteria by which you
judge an action or person, it's not hard to see how this would inevitably lead to self-
sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is the ultimate difficult choice. It requires you to throw away your
values for nothing in return. The bigger the sacrifice, the stronger a case for your integrity.
Sacrificing your life is then considered the ultimate act of integrity.

How is it that altruism can be so dependent on this virtue of integrity? Why, of all the
virtues, does this one seem to take a crowning position in that system of ethics? How did it
become almost synonymous with moral worth?

The answer lies in the fact that altruism is a pointless system of ethics. The morality is not
a means to other ends. It's an end in itself. They don't do these actions to benefit
themselves. They do it because they feel they should. Because the morality is pointless, it
requires its adherents to be blind followers. They must obey, regardless of the cost.

A morality that requires non-thinking adherence must inevitably make integrity a central
theme. Since the morality is an end in itself, the highest end can only be practicing that
moral system. The only "value" gained from practicing an irrational ethics is the feeling of
moral worthiness. So practicing the moral standard becomes the central value.

But wait! Isn't altruism supposed to be about helping others? Isn't that the central value?
In practice, the answer is no. As I discussed above, the rich man and poor man help others
equally well when they donate the same amount. But the rich man is condemned while the
poor man is applauded. If helping people was the central value, then you'd expect that the
degree to which you helped someone was the degree to which the action is moral. But it's
never the case. Always the action is judged, not by how much you've helped, but by how
much it cost you. The rich man spent little compared to what he could give, so is

111

considered stingy. If anyone praises him, it would be grudgingly -- even if he doubles the
donation of the poor man. No, helping people is not the central value.

So it makes sense that integrity would become so important. Virtues aim at particular
values. Integrity aims at the value of a good moral character. It's the value of knowing that
you're a good person. And whenever you have an ethical system that doesn't actually
benefit you, you practice it only to be a "good" person. It's inevitable that integrity would
take over and become the supreme virtue. And as noted above, that means that moral
action in the face of difficulty is the most morally praiseworthy act. And of course, that
elevates self-sacrifice to a noble ideal.

Objectivism differs greatly from this position. It doesn't just uphold moral worthiness for
actions that are difficult. In other words, it doesn't elevate integrity to a primary virtue.
Instead it upholds moral worthiness for all of the virtues. A man showing productivity is
morally praiseworthy, regardless of the cost to him. A man who thinks rationally or is
honest is morally praiseworthy, not because those are difficult, but because he
understands that they benefit his life. It's his life, and the values that make it possible that
form the criteria for moral praiseworthiness.

Altruism is impractical. It has no point.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Why_Altruism.shtml

The other day I listened to some associates discuss the welfare state. Instead of giving my
own opinion on the topic, I thought I'd listen in on them. It was a civil conversation,
although they had fundamental disagreements. One guy believed absolutely that the
government should support anyone who needs it. He believed money spent on the military
was a waste when it could be used to "help" people instead. The other guy believed that
welfare is often wasted paying money to people who don't deserve it. He cited people that
have never worked a day in their lives, drug addicts, etc.

The conversation progressed and they managed to find some common ground. They both
accepted that the government should help the unfortunate. They had a problem
determining where you should draw the lines, though. Should drug addicts get welfare? Is
it immoral to cut the welfare recipients off after a few years? They couldn't agree on any
conclusions.

As a philosopher, it's easy to see the problem. In order to define the moral limits of an
action, you'd have to understand the purpose of the action. What is the purpose of doing
it? What do you accomplish? Why do it at all?

And that's where they ran into a problem. The welfare system is based on the ethical
system called altruism. It is a system that requires the sacrifice of some individuals for the
sake of others. The lives and livelihoods of the "others" is held as an absolute. We must
make their lives comfortable and pleasant. It's a moral obligation.

To understand the limits of the welfare system, you have to identify the reason behind this
alleged moral obligation. Why exactly do we need to sacrifice for the sake of these people?

112

This is the question they needed to answer to solve their dispute.

You should now be able to see their dilemma. They started with assumption that altruism
is good. When they started to look at the consequences, such a drug addicts or lazy people,
they wanted to limit the scope of it. Their hope was to make the system more practical.
What they failed to realize is that altruism is not practical. There's not a practical reason in
the world for it.

Ayn Rand said "Now there is one word – a single word – which can blast the morality of
altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand – the word: 'why?'"

Altruism doesn't serve a purpose. You can't make it practical because it's not meant to be
practical. The premise is pointless and irrational, and you can't try to fix it by mixing a
little rationality with it. The only real fix is to remove the irrationality entirely. The degree
to which it remains is the degree to which it's impractical.

How would adding a little rationality affect this example? Well, what if you decided not to
give welfare to the drug-users or hyper-lazy? You might make it more practical, but only
by destroying the altruistic principle. Instead of these people having a right to your money,
you'd be saying that they don't in some cases. To that extent, you'd be denying the
altruistic principle. Reason would gain ground, but at the expense of altruism. And that's
the way it must be.

This inherent impracticality stems from the sheer pointlessness of altruism. I could tell
that these two would never settle on the right answer as long as they tried to find a
balance between altruism and practicality. Only when/if they checked their premises
would they realize the two ideas are fundamentally incompatible. Then maybe they could
ask that simple question: "Why?"

There are many varieties of altruism, precisely because it has no point.

http://www.RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/The_Thousand_Faces_of_Altruism.sht
ml

Ethics is supposed to be a guide to our actions. It's supposed to give us some kind of
direction for our decision making. Ethics answers the question, "What should I do?" It
does this by providing us a standard of value by which we can compare our different
options, and select the one that best fits. Simple, right?

Well, Objectivists often talk about the dominant morality in the world today, altruism. We
know that it upholds helping other people as the good, and that means sacrificing your
own interests and desires. But does this conception of altruism really fit the description
from above? Does it really provide us guidance?

Imagine you're an altruist. You decide you should choose the goals and actions that are
oriented to help other people. But which people? And what do you mean by help? Do you
help your neighbor? Poor people in another country? Some millionaire you know (after
all, he is an "other", so technically fits the requirements of altruism). Altruism, as is often

113

used by Objectivists, is an abstraction of many kinds of actual ethical systems.

The most conventional form is the system that says you should help those people who are
most in need. But that opens up a whole can of worms. What do you mean by those most
in need? Are you talking about the poorest? Are you talking about those most likely to die
(such as the sick or those living under despotism)? Are you talking about those least likely
to get help from someone else? All of these are possibilities.

In fact, you can't even rely on the word "help." It can mean any number of things. Think
about a personal ethics for a minute. Say you decide to formulate an ethics for helping
yourself. What standard do you use? What do you mean by help?

You could mean it in a hedonistic way, meaning something that gives you pleasure. You
could mean it in a rational self-interested way, meaning that which promotes your
life. You could mean it in a "it's the thought that counts" way, meaning you do whatever
you feel like. You could uphold physical health as your standard, and do whatever makes
you healthier. You could jump into the mind-body dichotomy, either meaning it in a
materialistic way in which money and wealth are the goals, or in a "spiritual" way, by
which you would concentrate on your mind or feelings.

There are all of these possibilities, and more. And these same possibilities exist when
discussing "helping others" under altruism. Depending on what you think is helping them,
altruism will guide you to radically different conclusions.

But there are other kinds of altruism besides the standard. Utilitarianism is one form. It
means trying to maximize the total happiness of "society" at large. And that doesn't
necessarily mean helping the worst-off. It may mean sacrificing them for the better-off, if
you can somehow come up with an explanation for why that would improve things. But
what it would mean for the committed altruist is that he'd try to put his efforts where
they'd make the biggest difference.

Another form is egalitarianism, which just tries to make everyone equal. This is similar to
helping those most in need, but the standard it uses is a relative one. You help the worse-
off by making them equal to the best-off. And if that means hurting the best-off (in
objective terms), so be it.

And of course, there's the most vile form of altruism. It doesn't care so much about
whether you objectively help other people or not, it just cares that your actions revolve
around them, and not yourself. Your own sacrifice is the goal, and other people are just a
means to it. The extent to which you suffer is that proof and reward of your moral
convictions.

When you look at all of these different kinds of altruism, there isn't that much in
common. Although "other people" is the principle behind each of these, they're very
different from one another. How is it that there can be so many variations? Is there a right
one? A better one? Is one closer to the final goal of altruism?

114

And that's the punch-line. Altruism doesn't have a goal. There is no good reason behind
this "other people" principle. Any particular variety of altruism is as good as any
other. They're all equally pointless.

Sometimes in Objectivist discussion altruism is taken to be any system of self-sacrifice.
Technically, it is the generic form that upholds other people in one way or another as being
the ultimate value. There are other distinct forms of self-sacrificial ethics, including
environmentalism which upholds nature in opposition to all men.

Altruism is the dominant ethics. In fact, many people can't imagine morality outside of
society, the term is so tightly connected to other people. If you ask someone for morally
praiseworthy actions, they'll list things like helping an old lady cross the street, jumping into
fires to rescue people, etc. If you are stranded alone on an island, morality isn't seen as
relevant.

Altruism is usually based on a particular kind of world-view. The view is that people are just
not cut out for survival on this earth, and we all have to stick together in order to survive.
Typical altruist morality discussions involve a drowning person, and whether you jump in
after them. This is especially the case when contrasted with rational self-interest. So altruism
is based on this doom and gloom view of the world, where everyone will die if we aren't all
struggling together. The contrast between that and most people's actual lives is stark, but the
comparison is rarely made.

Altruism is often put into a package-deal with benevolence. That means they're equated, or
said to go hand in hand. This obscures the nature of altruism by providing it with a moral
facade. Being nice to people you care about it what altruism hides behind. But altruism is
about self-sacrifice. It's about valuing people for their mere existence, and raising them above
your self. And as mentioned above, altruism says the most moral thing is the largest sacrifice.

Benevolence does not need altruism. There are plenty of selfish reasons for being benevolent.
But by mixing the two, altruism hides its ugly nature while stealing the credit for something it
has nothing to do with.

Altruism is often not a complete ethical system. It provides guidance in some limited
environments, but in many cases it leaves you without a clue. Many activities are considered
amoral.

And finally, many people try to argue that altruism is not incompatible with rational self-
interest. This is flawed, and we have the tools to see why. When it comes to a standard of
value, we can see there's a definite conflict. Either your own life is considered the primary
value, and everything revolves around it, or the lives of other people are. The conflict means
that they will naturally lead to different results.

What the people looking for compatibility are probably confused about is that our interests are
not necessarily in disharmony with other people. Pursuing our own goals does not mean
hurting others. Sometimes helping others is in our interest. This is true. But Objectivist ethics
is not aimed at not helping others. The standard is our own life, and if that means helping

115

others, then no problem. But we're not doing it because it helps them, but because it benefits
us in some way. The standard must be our own life.

Keep in mind though that it all has to do with priorities. That's what ethics is about. We make
decisions between our choices by picking the best. So the question of altruism vs. Objectivist
ethics really boils down to the standards of value involved. Are we acting in order to help
other people as our ultimate goal, or are we acting in order to help ourselves. This is why the
two ethical systems are not compatible. There must be a choice between these, and whatever
choice made decides which ethical system you're pursuing.

Ethics of Emergencies

One of Ayn Rand's essay's is particular interesting. It's in the Virtue of Selfishness, and it's
called the Ethics of Emergencies. The title describes how some people base their ethical
principles on emergency situations. The classic example is the "lifeboat" scenario. There's a
few variants, but essentially the story is that you're stuck on a lifeboat with some other people,
and there's not enough water for everyone to survive the trip to shore. In order to live, you
have to sacrifice someone else.

The lesson of the scenario is that you have to choose between your life and the life of another
person. There is a fundamental disharmony of interests, and it's kill or be killed. Which means
in life, you're either a murderer, you are a victim, or you can sacrifice your life for other
people.

What happens next is that this scenario is taken to be some kind of proof of moral principles.
You're expected to learn the lesson of the conflict, and decide on a method of conduct that
conforms to it. Will you choose to be a murderer? Or will you voluntarily sacrifice yourself
for the greater good? These are your options.

The problem is that these ethics-derived-from-emergencies are anti-contextual. It's just not
true that there is a disharmony of interests. We don't have to choose between killing and dying
in day to day life. We don't have to choose between sacrificing ourselves to others or others to
ourselves. So abstracting general principles from these situations is a really bad idea. The
principles are based on such a radically alien context that they're not relevant at all.

By trying to use these situations as a representation of real life, it actually becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy. If you accept that life is full of conflicts of interest, you'll act accordingly
and create conflicts where there are none. You'll seek to sacrifice yourself where no sacrifice
is necessary, or you'll trample on the interests of others thinking it's either you or them.

Rand described an emergency as a kind of situation where human life is not possible. That
isn't to say you won't survive an emergency. It means that if life were like that normally, it
would be impossible. You may survive the lifeboat scenario, but only because you remove
yourself from the emergency situation at some point. When you reach the shore and find food,
water, and hospitalization, the emergency is over. But during the emergency, lives are in
danger.

116

Rand's article acts as a warning against taking emergency situations too seriously. They're all
dangerous and necessarily short-lived. The goal isn't to figure out how best to survive
emergencies, but to figure out how to avoid them, or if you get into them, end them quickly.
Your behavior in emergency situations is going to be different from your day to day events,
precisely because the context is so different.

For instance, you might not give money to someone who's poor and unemployed because it's
not an emergency situation. They have the choice to change their situation, and the results are
a predictable outcome of their actions. You can't really take responsibility for someone else's
life. But in the case of an emergency situation, like the recent tsunami disaster, the context is
very different. The disaster affected everyone, and wasn't a foreseeable event to avoid. It's
natural that people would evaluate the two kinds of situations in entirely different ways.
Sending help to the tsunami victims is completely different from sacrificing for someone who
won't bother living his own life.

You'll notice that modern ethical theories often rely on emergency situations. We've had
discussions on SOLO where altruists try to defend their theories by saying "What if there's a
baby drowning in a lake, and you're late for a business meeting!". This is central to the
altruistic view. They come from the perspective that life is a constant emergency, and only an
ethics of emergencies can see us through. For them, the world is a hostile place where human
life is always teetering on the edge, and only by sacrificing for one another can we possibly
make it!

Compromise in Ethics

Ayn Rand wrote an article called "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?". It discusses an
important aspect of morality. When you interact with other people, it's natural that you're not
going to completely agree with each other on everything, so how do you cooperate?
Ultimately, it means you have to be willing to compromise so that both of you get enough of
what you each want that it's worth doing, even though it may not be everything you want.

So what's the nature of compromise? Rand breaks it up into two categories.

The first category is a kind of trade between two people. This is the kind of compromise
where both parties gain, and it is in the interest of the parties to cooperate. If a friend and I
intend to see a movie, we may disagree on which movie we should go to. But we both benefit
from having someone go with us, and we're pretty flexible about where we want to go. So I'm
willing to see a movie that isn't on the top of my list because I'd enjoy the selected movie
more due to having company. I like being able to talk about the movie afterwards with
someone. So this kind of compromise allows a win-win situation to occur.

A second kind of compromise happens when moral principles are in opposition. Imagine a
thief breaking into your house and trying to steal all of your valuables. Now what happens if
someone suggest you should compromise? Perhaps you let them keep some of it, but they
don't get it all. That is a compromise between moral principles. You think it's wrong for them

117

to steal from you, but they think it's right. Who wins by that kind of compromise? What value
do you gain from making such a deal?

Objectivists often recite a particularly catchy quote Rand made. "In any compromise between
food and poison, it is only death that can win". When you compromise with evil, only evil
wins. The good gains nothing from the compromise. When you let the thief take some of your
property, you lose, and he wins. The fact that it's not a complete win doesn't change the nature
of it. It's still a win for them, and a loss for you.

Why is this important? Because compromise is often seen as the way to get people to get
along. The advantages of the first kind of compromise are obvious. But then it's generalized.
If any two people who disagree will just compromise, they'll both gain from it, or so the
thinking goes. And so compromise has turned into a primary social/ethical tool. Whenever
there is conflict, compromise is the suggestion.

As you can see from the second kind of compromise, it's a disaster in practice to generalize
the virtue of compromise too far. What happens when you try to compromise on fundamental
moral principles? Essentially, you're sacrificing them. You're giving them up and acting
against them, even if you only do it partially. But the point of the moral principles is to guide
you to a successful life. If you sacrifice your principles, you don't gain anything but death in
return. And when you willing compromise them, you get exactly what you'd expect. Nothing
but pain and suffering.

118

Politics

Themes of Politics

It's time to discuss a more narrow subset of ethics, the branch of philosophy called politics.
Politics arises in a social context, and so is sometimes mistaken as being the field of ethics
applied in a social environment. This isn't the case, as we've hinted at before. Politics revolves
around the use of force among individuals. This leave an enormous amount of interactions
between individuals outside of the field of politics. There are friendships, business partners,
trading of goods and services, family, romance, and anything else you can imagine. All of that
is outside of the scope of politics.

Politics, like the other branches of philosophy, is inescapable. Every philosophical system has
to answer the fundamental question of when force is appropriate. Whether you believe force
should never be used, or should be used whenever you feel like, or only for particular
purposes, that defines your political stance. Everyone must have a position on this issue
because the use of force has such a direct impact on people's lives. Practically, it cannot be
avoided.

What are the different themes of politics?

The first theme is the nature and moral status of the use of force. When is it appropriate and
when is it not? Is there a good kind of force and a bad kind of force? Does the degree matter,
and if so how much?

The second theme is the nature of government. Is there a need for it? What is the role of
government? What kind of actions are permissible by government? What kinds of actions are
legitimate for government? Are there better forms of government, and how do you judge it?

A third theme, closely tied to the first, is the nature of rights. Not all politics are phrased in
terms of rights, but it's pretty common in modern thought. What is the nature of rights? What
are the limits? Who do they apply to? What conditions are necessary for them? What
conditions make them necessary?

A fourth theme, often overlooked, is that politics is a branch of ethics. It deals with a limited
topic, but the principles of ethics still apply. There are still values, choices, actions, and
principles. There are still standards of value.

The context of politics

To get a good idea of Objectivist politics, we need to start with a discussion of the context.
This will give us an idea of the problem that need to be understood, and the human needs that
need to be satisfied, as well as the conditions that need to be present for a discussion of
politics to make any sense.

119

To start, we need to remember that politics is an aspect of ethics. And what is the standard of
ethics? Life. So the first goal of politics is to identify the human needs that need to be satisfied
in order to live. We need an understanding of what life requires.

Man is a conceptual being who needs to identify his values in order to pursue them. The use
of his mind is an integral part of his survival. Life is a series of choices based on what he
believes will further his life, and putting those choices into action. To live and pursue his
values, he need to be able to do both. He needs to be able to think, and to act on that thinking.
This is the central need being addressed by politics. Man has to be allowed to pursue his
values and consequently his life without other men getting in his way.

While on the subject of how man lives, there a crucial point that needs to be made. Mendon't
just consume the values that promote their lives, they also produce them. An animal in the
wild has to accept the conditions around it, looking for food that's available for it to consume.
It eats well if it finds the right plants, or in the case of a carnivore, if it finds the right prey and
manages to kill it.

Man works in a fundamentally different way. He actually produces wealth. He's not
dependent on finding the right plant at the right time. Instead, he creates a garden, ensuring
that the plant is available when he wants it. He doesn't have to hunt for his meat, hoping that a
tasty animal crosses his path. Instead, he domesticates a cow, growing them on his farm. He
feeds them and keeps them fenced in, and they're available for him when he eats.

More importantly, he breeds the cows. Man doesn't just consume from an already existing
supply given to him by nature or luck. Instead, he adds to the supply. He produces wealth in
order to consume it. By adding to the existing supply, he removes himself from a zero-sum
world where everyone fights over the last little scraps, and instead expands the pot.

This fundamental fact of man's nature, that he produces the wealth he wants to consume, has
an important side-effect. Instead of fighting with his fellow men over existing wealth, he
creates wealth ending any necessary conflict of interest. And in fact, he finds that by
cooperation, he's more easily able to produce wealth.

There are a number of reasons for this. There's the division of labor which allows a man to
specialize in a particular field and produce more efficiently, knowing that he can trade the
product of their efforts to others for supplies he hasn't produced. Related to this is the ability
to have deep and specialized knowledge about a particular topic, instead of having to learn
many. With the deeper knowledge, he can act more efficiently. There's the economy of scale
which means he can produce a lot of a particular good and there will be enough buyers to
make it worthwhile. That means fixed costs like a factory can be paid for by making slight
profit on a lot of goods. And there are many other reasons why cooperation means more
wealth.

So not only is there no necessary conflict of interest between men, but there is a harmony of
interests. It makes sense to live amongst other men, and to live by trade and cooperation. It
cannot be overstated how significant this factor is on a man's life.

120

But it is within this context that the need for politics arises. This social context creates the
possibility that one man will prevent another man from living his life by preventing him from
acting according to his own best judgment. The harmony of interest created by man's ability
to produce and to cooperate is destroyed if men turn against each other and interfere with each
other's ability to live.

Men aren't like animals though. Normal adults have the choice to either respect these needs of
their fellow men, or to intentionally create a conflict between them. Because of our ability to
reason and our free will, we can choose to live peacefully within society. And of course, we
can choose not to. The harmony of interest exists only between those men that are will to live
peacefully with one another.

So here we can see the critical elements important to a valid political theory. First, man lives
by the use of his mind, and interference with his ability to act on his own best judgment is an
attack on his life. Next, man produces wealth instead of merely consuming it, ending any
necessary conflict of interest. In addition, since cooperation and trade allows for enhanced
wealth production, there is an alignment of interests between people. But that harmony of
interests only exist between men who choose to live peacefully with others.

Let's look at it from a slightly different perspective. You want to live your life. To do that,
you need to be free to make your choices and do as you will. But you also want to live
amongst other peaceful people so you can gain the amazing benefits of living in a society
including massive increases in wealth. Objectivist politics is concerned with achieving the
latter goal without compromising the more basic need. There is no necessary conflict between
these goals, so we should be able to achieve both. And this is the fundamental problem in
politics.

Individual Rights

The concept of individual rights is the foundation of Objectivist politics. In the last lecture, we
discussed the problem of living within a society while retaining our ability to act according to
our own reasoned judgment in the pursuit of our lives. Individual rights is the mechanism by
which this can be attained.

What are individual rights exactly? You can think of them as social boundaries between
people. There are certain actions that are off limits because they are an attack on another
person's ability to live. Rights are an identification of particular human needs and the
conditions necessary for someone to live peacefully within a society. The goal of rights is to
create a barrier of freedom around a person where other people are not allowed to violate.
Rights demand a limitation on the actions of other people so they don't interfere with the
freedom of the individual.

Rights are an identification of certain facts of reality. It identifies man's needs for life, and
thus his needs within a social context. It identifies the kinds of actions that should be properly
considered an attack on the life of the individual. But I'm not talking about the narrow view of

121

life that means the opposite of death. Life, in the sense of the process of self-generated, self-
sustaining action, can be attacked in more than one way. By preventing an individual from
acting to promote his life, you are attacking that process. You are impairing his ability to
survive. Rights set the boundary to prevent any attack on one's life, not just those immediately
ending in death or physical harm.

Since rights are based on universal human needs, and the rights are an identification and
recognition of those needs, everyone has the same rights. Rights are universal. An important
implication is that a person does not "have the right" to violate the rights of another person.
These barriers of freedom do not conflict with one another. Your freedom of action does not
include the freedom to violate the rights of other people.

Rights are always in the form of a freedom to act. The word "rights" had gained enough
credibility and popularity that it is now sometimes used beyond it's proper meaning. People
talk about a "right to health care", or a "right to education", or any number of other so-called
rights.

It's important to distinguish individual rights from these false rights. Individual rights place a
constraint on the actions of others that allow you freedom of action. These false rights require
other people to act in order to perform them. If you have a right to health care, someone must
provide it. Where individual rights allow you the freedom to pursue these goals, these false
rights claim to promise you the results of actions. It means somebody must be enslaved in
order to satisfy it. That's why they're not really rights. They are incompatible with individual
rights.

Sometimes, to distinguish between these radically different kinds of rights, people refer to
them as positive and negative rights, based on the kind of obligation they entail. A positive
right requires someone else to do something for the rights-wielder. It is a demand for someone
else's service. A positive right is not a legitimate right. Negative rights require others to not
interfere with the rights-wielder. It requires a kind of inaction by setting certain interfering
acts off limits. So the false positive rights require that other people perform actions for you,
while negative rights just requires them to leave you alone.

That should give you a better grasp of the idea of individual rights as a protective boundary
around a person where other people are not allowed to tread. The boundary is not a physical
boundary, but a social boundary, limiting the kinds of interactions that are possible. Rights
aren't some kind of magical property that other people are unable to violate. Obviously
violations of rights, such as murder, can and do happen. So what is the nature of rights? What
exactly are they?

Rights are a recognition of these fundamental human needs within a social context. The needs
are facts of reality that we can observe and understand. Rights recognize these facts and
understand them within a moral framework. They recognize that to live as a human being,
these boundaries must exist. And they recognize that a violation of these boundaries is
morally wrong. Rights is an awareness that a violation of these needs is an attack on the life of
the victim. It is also a recognition that to live, a person who's rights are violated must remedy

122

the violations or defend against them. It is morally right for him to respond with violence in
order to repair the damage and to reestablish the conditions for living his life.

The point here is that we establish these buffer-zones from interference in order to live
peacefully with other men. If the conditions that give rise to the concept of rights are
invalidated, your actions should reflect the new conditions. When someone violates your
rights, you have to recognize that they are not living peacefully with you, and then do what
you must to rid yourself of the interference.

There is a lot of confusion with the term "rights". People talk about having rights, rights being
inalienable, losing rights, etc. They talk about rights as if they are real things, that you can
give up or lose. Instead of trying to sort it all out, you should focus on the facts of reality.
Look past the word at the concepts involved.

When a criminal attacks you, does he abdicate his own right to life? Looking past the words,
you can see that the criminal has altered the conditions that give rise to the concept of rights.
We have rights to live peacefully amongst other people, but the criminal has invalidated that
possibility. In that case, you should act to promote your own life even if it means killing the
criminal. Does it matter if the criminal is said to abdicate his rights or not? The result is the
same regardless of the terminology.

Force: The violation of rights

The last lecture hit on the concept of rights. How does the term 'force' come into play? What
exactly does it mean, and what's the relationship with individual rights? This lecture will
discuss the concept of force, provide some examples of the different kinds of force, and
discuss the moral status of force.

To start with, what exactly do we mean by force? The word has a lot of meaning. To force
someone to do something, you might have this image of wrestling with them and forcing their
hands into the right position. Forcing a baby to eat her food involves actually shoving the food
in her mouth with a spoon. But in the political sense, force is a much wider concept.

Force includes things like murder, physical violence, theft, or the threat of any of these. Force
is the means by which a person violates the rights of another person. The criminal is
preventing a person from acting according to his own judgment by physically preventing it. In
the example of a threat of force, the criminal threatens to harm a person's life unless they act
in a particular way.

For instance, imagine a mugger pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding his money.
This is a pretty clear case of force. The gunman is forcing the victim to give up his wallet or
he'll be killed. The action is unwanted by the victim, but because his life is on the line, he has
no choice. He has to choose between his own life and whatever is demanded of him. Even if
he can fight back, he's still risking his life involuntarily.

123

Let's take a moment to consider what it means for something to be voluntary. Couldn't it be
argued that the mugger has given the victim a choice, and whichever he picks is still
voluntary? Not if the word has any meaning. The mugger has forced the victim into an
unnecessary choice. The mugger has attacked the life of the victim by forcing this choice
upon him. It doesn't matter that the victim still has some semblance of a choice remaining, it
doesn't make it voluntary. And since his life is on the line, there is no real choice.

This is the nature of physical force. One person puts another person into a situation against his
will. It's called physical force, not because it requires heaving loading or exercise, but because
it's implemented in action. The use of force prevents a person from acting according to his
own wishes. It does this in the physical world by actually preventing the action, either directly
or indirectly (i.e., threats).

Rand observed that force and mind are opposites. When one uses force against another, it
severs the connection between their resulting actions and their better judgment. They are
prevented from acting in the way they way, which means their own judgment is overturned by
an outside agent. Force invalidates the effectiveness of your mind. It invalidates your own
moral choices, and forces you to act according to the wishes of someone else. When that
happens, your mind shuts down.

A violation of rights comes in the form of a use of force. The two concepts are inextricably
linked. Individual rights describe the range of free action that is yours by right. A violation of
your rights ultimately means an infringement on your freedom. It means that you are no
longer allowed to choose your actions. You are prevented from choosing your actions by
someone else who, through the use of physical, destroys your ability to act on your own
judgment.

The use of force is not necessarily bad, though. It can be life-preserving in certain contexts. In
a regular day-to-day context, where people live peacefully, the use of force is wrong. When
someone begins the use of force, or "initiates force" against another, they're destroying the
harmony of interests that furthers both of their lives. The principle that recognizes that an
initiation of force is wrong is called the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (NIOF).

Once force has been initiated, it is proper for others to respond to that force with force of their
own. They may seek to stop the use of force, to repair the damage, or to punish the violator.
To do that, they use physical force of their own against him. This second force is called
retaliatory force, or sometimes defensive force. Retaliatory force is a necessary measure to
further a person's life. Rights-violators should not be allowed to initiate force at will, or
anyone can be harmed. It is in your interest to prevent your rights from being violated. It is in
your interest to respond with force against initiators of force, so they can't do it again.

Objectivist politics is compromised of two basic moral guidelines. The first is to not initiation
force, and thus sustain the harmony of interests. The second is to retaliate against the initiation
of force, in order to remove existing conflicts and restore the harmony of interests.

124

Property Rights

We've kept the discussion of individual rights somewhat abstract, not discussing particular
rights. The general "freedom from interference" is enough to give us a pretty good idea of
what kind of specific rights that involves. It also keeps us focused on the bigger picture that
all rights are derived from the same source, man's needs. There is only one right, and that is
the right to life. Everything else is just an aspect of that.

Over the course of history, it's been necessary to discuss rights in specific forms for one
reason or another. Thus you have right to free speech, a right to assemble, freedom of belief,
and so on. Each of these are just instances of the more general freedom from interference.

Some of the specific rights are a little less straightforward. The big example is property rights.
Remember that the fundamental right is the right to life. So we have to go back to looking at
what life involves. In an abstract way, we've talked about it requiring us to choose our actions
and be able to pursue them. But we need to get more specific. To live, we need to produce
physical wealth, such as food, clothing, housing, automobiles, etc.

Action alone does not allow us to live. It's production, and the ability to consume what we
produce, that allows life. A right to life requires not only the freedom to produce wealth, but
the freedom to use that produced wealth in whatever way we see fit. This is the basis of
property rights. Property rights is just another form of freedom of action, but in this case it's
the freedom to use the wealth we've produced.

You can see that without a right to property, our other rights would be meaningless. What's
the point of freedom of action if we aren't allowed to benefit from the results of those actions?
What's the point of a right to not be murdered when someone can just come along and prevent
us from eating? Property rights are necessary to have any of the other rights be meaningful at
all.

Property rights are violated by theft, which is a form of force. Theft obviously refers to the act
of taking your property away from you. It also refers to an action that would prevent you from
using your property. When a government passes a law saying you can't make modifications
on your home, they are violating your property rights.

Fraud is also a type of theft. I have an article here:

http://RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Fraud.shtml

Recently on SoloHQ, there's been a discussion on whether fraud is really a kind of
initiation of force. This debate has come up a few times in the past, so it might be
appropriate to go over the concept.

What exactly is fraud? The short answer is that it's a form of theft. Theft comes in a
variety of forms. It can be the lone mugger who puts a gun to you and takes your wallet. It
can be the burglar who sneaks into your home when you're away and takes your
valuables. It can be the government requiring that you pay your taxes, or nationalizing
your company. It ranges from in-your-face aggression where your life is at stake to a

125

subtle and indirect form, where you may not notice you've been robbed, such as
embezzlement.

The form doesn't particularly matter. Theft is just the act of taking someone else's
legitimate property from them against their will. Whether you make lots of noise doing it
doesn't change the essential nature.

So how is fraud a form of theft? Fraud, after all, is tricking someone to give up their
property. Superficially, the victim of the fraud is willingly giving away the property. So can
this really be considered a form of theft if the victim is willingly participating?

The problem with this view is that it ignores the difference between possession of a good
and legitimate ownership. A fraud is based on an economic exchange. The two people
decide to trade one set of goods or service for another. The problem is that one of the
sides is not fulfilling their end of the exchange. Although the victim of the fraud may have
indeed transferred possession of the goods to the other party, they did not transfer legal
ownership.

And that's the key to understanding fraud. Because it's based on an exchange, the transfer
of ownership is conditional. If the other party does not or cannot fulfill their end of the
exchange, they have no right to the property.

This can be best illustrated with an example. Imagine I offer to pay you $100,000 for your
car. You think it's a great deal, and agree to the exchange. I write you a check. If the check
bounces, I don't get to keep the car. This is true even if you hand over the deed to the
car. That's because the transfer is conditional. If I default on my part, I have not
legitimately acquired the rights to your property. The fact that you have physically
transferred possession of the car to me does not invalidate your rights to the car.

The two halves of a trade are inextricably connected. You can't separate them or treat
them as independent parts. You can't treat it as if one person is giving a gift to the other,
and that other person is coincidentally giving a gift to the first. The nature of an exchange
is to trade one value for another. There cannot be half of an exchange.

Fraud is often used in a general sense to mean deceit. Sometimes people lie about their
accomplishments or connections or any number of other things. Lying, though, isn't a
violation of another person's rights. So we have to be careful when discussing fraud in the
political sense. It specifically deals with a violation of property rights by not completing
the terms of an exchange.

Fraud does not involve putting a gun to someone's head and demanding money. It's a soft,
quiet form of theft. It's used to access someone's property that would be difficult to get at
through more direct means of theft. That is, someone can steal your DVD player out of
your house, but they'll have a difficult time accessing your life savings kept in banks or
investments. But the fact that they don't sneak in at night, or they don't need to pull out a
weapon doesn't change the fact that it is theft.

126

A similar kind of rights violation occurs with contracts. One party might provide a product
or service based on the expectation of receiving some form of payment. If the other
person fails to provide their side of the exchange, they have "broken the contract" and the
first party has legal recourse. The principle is the same as that in fraud. Just because
you've received a benefit or physically possess some goods, you haven't acquired the right
to that property. Both sides of the exchange must be completed.

There are those who argue against fraud because direct force (like using a gun during a
mugging) wasn't used. They think that it isn't actually a use of force, because violence was
unnecessary. But these people are ignoring the fact that a violation of property rights is a
form of force. Force is not limited to bodily harm or the threat thereof. It also includes
attacks on property.

Basically, it says that fraud is an exchange made under certain conditions, and the conditions
end up not being satisfied. What that means is that while physically the goods may have
exchanged hands, the right to the goods have not. The transfer of property rights was
conditioned on the terms of the exchange that were not met by one of the parties. The result is
that one side has taken the property of the other, and that's just theft. The fact that there was a
lie involved is inconsequential. The real violation of rights is in keeping the property when
there has not be a real transfer of ownership of the property.

The Epistemological Need for Government

The initiation of force is harmful to our lives, and we need to have retaliatory force to live.
But it's not just an attack on our lives directly that impairs our lives. Someone initiating force
against others affects our lives as well. A disruption of the harmony of interests is a matter
everyone should be concerned with.

It's easy enough to say that the initiation of force should be responded to with retaliatory
force. Putting it into practice is a lot more difficult. For instance, how do you know whether a
particular use of force is an initiation of force, or an instance of retaliation? The person
committing the use of force may have an opinion, but it makes no sense to let him be the
decider, or everyone will just say they're retaliating.

The problem can be best summarized by an example. Imagine you see one man shoot another
dead. Was this an initiation of force or retaliatory force? If it was an initiation of force, it
would make sense to use retaliatory force against the shooter. If it was retaliatory force, you
would not be justified in using force. Now say you decide it was an initiation of force, and
you respond by pulling out a gun and shooting the gunman. Now imagine just as you do this,
someone else walks by, and wonders whether you're initiating or retaliating...

The essential problem I'm trying to convey is that there's an epistemological issue with the use
of force. Even if you believe that you're using retaliatory force, if others decide that you are
the initiator, they'll believe themselves justified in using violence against you.

127

Retaliatory force is already a risky proposition. In the process of enforcing it, you might get
attacked yourself. Criminals are rarely good-natured when it comes to retaliatory force. And it
certainly doesn't help that the rest of the population may think you're the criminal, exposing
yourself to even greater risk.

So there's an epistemological need for government. The need is for an established method of
deciding when retaliatory force is appropriate, and to what extent it is. It needs to be
established so that those who enforce the retaliation know that they are not going to be
punished for it themselves. They need to be able to show that they followed the appropriate
method, came to the decision through an objective method and with objective evidence, and
responded in an objectively appropriate way.

This complex decision making on whether any particular act of force is appropriate or not is
the key to understanding government. If government were just about wielding retaliatory
force, anyone could do it. You might still have people working together to minimize risk, but
it wouldn't be necessary. What is necessary is a method for all of the concerned participants of
a society to have a method of making these group decisions. For that, you need a structured
system that defines what is an appropriate use of force, and judges the specific merits of
individual cases.

What is Government?

Rand discusses this topic in "The Nature of Government" in "Capitalism: The Unknown
Ideal".

Earlier I've discussed the epistemological need that government is supposed to be able to
satisfy. Before going on, I think it's important to look at the concept of government in more
detail. What attributes are common to governments? What attributes are necessary for a
proper government? What exactly is a government?

Governments are usually divided into three major branches -- the Legislative, the Judicial, and
the Executive. This division is based on function, with the three major functions of a
government identified.

The Legislative branch makes the decision on what kinds of actions are permissible in its
jurisdiction. In a proper government where the protection of individual rights is the
fundamental goal, this would involve identifying what constitutes an initiation of force, and
what kind of response is appropriate to it. It would involve establishing the method by which
a use of force is to be evaluated. It's job is to determine the general rules and principles that
govern the use of force in society.

The Judicial branch of government is responsible for applying these rules and principles to
specific cases. It is responsible for judging the use of force in society and deciding what kind
of responses are appropriate. The goal here is not just to identify whether a use of force was
an initiation or merely retaliatory. Anyone could make that judgment. The Judiciary has to

128

accomplish this through very rigidly defined means to ensure that objective methods were
used.

Both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, in their own ways, deal with the
epistemological need identified earlier. They decide what is an appropriate use of force in the
general sense, and in the specific sense. They determine what is an appropriate response as
well.

The Executive branch is responsible for enforcement. It typically involves arresting criminals,
punishing criminals, and protecting the nation from outside invasions. The Executive branch
is responsible for actually implementing the retaliatory force. They're the muscle of the
government, the ones actually responsible for making sure the decisions are implemented.
Without the means to back up their judgments, the other two branches are all talk.

The proper goal of a government is to protect individual rights. Not all governments do this,
or even recognize this as a goal. But they still have features in common. The concept of
government needs to be defined widely enough to include even illegitimate governments. To
make it more general, a government decides what kinds of actions are permissible, and what
are the punishments for acting in an impermissible way. It establishes methods for
determining these rules, and methods for implementing them. And of course, it makes sure
they get implemented.

The Law

In the earlier discussions of government, I've noted that it needs to determine the general
principles or rules that determine what is an appropriate use of force. The goal is to determine
an objective method of deciding whether an action is appropriate or not. This objective
methodology is called the law. The law comprises the principles that determine what actions
are appropriate or not, the methods used to determine this appropriateness, the appropriate
punishments, and any other details necessary to provide an objective method of retaliatory
force.

If the goal of the government is ultimately to protect individual rights, one important step is to
explain clearly what exactly is a violation of rights, and what isn't. Communication of the
principles of proper use of force would need to be stated clearly and ahead of time. The law
satisfies this goal. It puts the standards of judgment into an objective format that people can
understand and apply, avoiding any violations of the law.

The legislative branch of government is responsible for defining the law. This is one of the
key functions of government. Making a decision with a huge number of people involved can
be very difficult. Just try getting 10 people to agree to a restaurant for a meal.

So actually determining the law is a significant part of the job of the government. If everyone
agreed ahead of time what was an appropriate action and what wasn't, there would still be
plenty for the government to do. But when you have widespread disagreement on many

129

issues, you start seeing some of the complexities associated with the epistemological need for
government. Coming to a conclusion with so many people involved is incredibly difficult.

But remember that's the job that needs to be done. We have to solve the problem of being able
to use retaliatory force in a way that doesn't itself appear to be an initiation of force to others.
The government is instituted to find a reasonable solution to this problem. And the first step is
to establish the standards by which actions are to be judged.

I've also written an article that briefly explores the idea of what form laws should take.

http://RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Principles_and_the_Law.shtml

There are two prevalent opinions about how laws should be enforced. There's the literal
camp, who claim that the rule of law requires that the laws be followed exactly. And
there's the "spirit of the law" camp, who think all laws should be interpreted based on
what the judge thinks the intent of the law was or is. Both sides have major problems.

The "spirit of the law" camp makes the laws non-objective, and keeps people guessing at
how a judge might interpret them. Since they are reading more into the laws then is
actually there, it gives them a lot of room to toy with the system. So the literal camp is right
in that it violates the rule of law.

The literal camp also has a problem. Often laws end up being written for some case, but
they are written in a way to accidentally include other cases. The results can end up being
grave acts of injustice. It's these kinds of cases that make people excuse judges when they
deviate from the law.

The problem is that laws are written in the form of rules, instead of principles. Moral rules
are in the form "You must do this". Moral principles are in the form, "To achieve this, you
must do this". Rule based ethics are always a disaster because the rules are context-free.
They're suppose to be taken as absolutes. But our moral choices should be based on what
we're trying to gain. Moral acts are always goal-directed. Moral rules ignore the values you
seek to achieve. Since they ignore all context, appeals to the desired ends are irrelevant.

Moral principles have context built into them. They show a relationship between means
and ends. They never elevate the means above the ends, sacrificing the ends along the way.
If the ends won't result from the means, then different means should be used. There is no
absolute adherence to rules that defy their own purpose.

Laws are an attempt to objectify the use of force in society. They describe the moral
boundaries that cannot be crossed, and the punishment for crossing them. Laws, though,
are written in the form of rules. This leaves them devoid of context. Just as with moral
rules, these only achieve positive ends in some circumstances, and in others, it encourages
deviation. The "spirit of the law" tries to resolve this problem, but actually creates an
entirely new set of problems.

So how about writing laws in the form of principles? This is the only workable method of
solving this problem. It would describe not just what acts are criminal, but why they are

130

criminal. One could then show that a particular case doesn't fit within the context of the
law, so it doesn't apply. Or one could argue the against the law on the grounds that it
doesn't achieve the desired ends.

This would have the added effect of showing that laws are not mere dictates from the
current thugs running the show. They are means to achieve a peaceful society.

Government as a Threat

To this point, I've discussed the need for government and some derivative issues concerning
how these needs are satisfied by a government. But anyone with a slight familiarity with the
history of liberty will recognize that government itself is usually the biggest threat to
individual rights. To get a better understanding of the structure and theories of government,
this is a major fact that cannot be ignored.

The problem is obvious. If there's an organization responsible for deciding what is or isn't a
proper use of force, they can and often do decide that their own uses, no matter how morally
illegitimate by objective standards, are just fine. This is compounded by the fact that
governments usually have a strong Executive branch capable of forcing people to accept its
decisions, no matter how wrong they are.

I think the reasons and methods by which a government abuses its position are well-known,
so let's just move on to what needs to be done about it. There are countless methods for
minimizing the possible corruption of a government, so this will be a short survey, in no
particular order.

The first method has already been discussed in a different context. The three functions of

governmentâ

€”Judicial, Legislative, and Executiveâ€”can be separated into different

branches. By splitting the powers, any single branch can prevent the others from carrying out
an injustice. A use of government power requires all three branches of the government to
cooperate.

Checks and balances is a system that pits the three branches against each other. Each branch is
given power to interfere with the other two branches. This comes in many forms. Some
branches are able to impeach members of the other branches. In the US, the President has a
partial veto over legislation. The Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional. The
legislature pays the salaries of the other branches, etc.

The government can be constrained by a constitution, which specifies the fundamental limits
of the government, and the limited powers it has. A Bill of Rights can further limit the scope
of government.

Democracy, or the ability to periodically vote for members of the government, allows the
voters to occasionally change the participants in the government. They may also have the
ability to change the structure of the government itself, or directly undo bad laws.

131

Federalism is a system of smaller government under a unifying larger government. The larger
government's scope is reduced and the responsibilities are then given to the smaller
governments, such as state or local governments. By removing the responsibilities of the
higher-level federal government, it reduces it's range of legitimate action. The smaller
governments may be more easily controlled by their constituents, reducing the chances of
governmental abuse.

The law itself limits the government by having an objective standard to repair to. The law
limits the government by defining exactly where it has authority, and consequently where it is
overstepping it's bounds.

As I said, this is just a survey, but you can already see the implications. The very structure of
government is often defined based on the needs to protect individual rights from the
government itself. The means there are two basic issues related to the structure of
government. The government needs to be able to protect our rights without becoming a threat
itself.

I have written an article on how principles can be used to stand up to government tyranny.

http://RebirthOfReason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Barriers_to_Tyranny.shtml

When the Constitution of the United States was first written, there was no Bill of Rights.
This was added, as a series of amendments, afterwards. There was a long debate on the
issue. Some people believed that the Constitution only had enumerated powers anyway, so
there was no need to add a Bill of Rights. In fact, it might confuse people by making it seem
the power of the government was unlimited except in these areas. To satisfy this position,
the 9th and 10th amendment spelled out clearly that the government was limited.

In the end, government has slowly crept towards tyranny. More and more of the
government functions go beyond the enumerated powers, and encroach on our lives. They
tell us how to have sex. They tell us how much water we can flush a toilet with. They make
us pay for things that we don’t want. But the government has not grown unchecked. There
are at least a few areas where the government hasn’t been able to completely take over.
These include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.

How is it that the document has been routinely ignored? What’s the nature of this
protection? And are there similar methods we can use?

The Bill of Rights is as successful as it is because it lays down certain rules the government
must follow. These are rules that if they try to break, we can clearly call them on it. Our
freedom is not protected by the piece of paper but the rules that it conveys clearly. By
giving the people a position to rally behind, it strengthens their will to oppose the
government. The Bill of Rights acts as a line drawn in the sand, where if they dare cross it,
we all know it’s time to stand up to them.

Liberty is defended by these lines in the sand. Most people familiar with politics
understand that special interests often win because the general public does not effectively

132

oppose them. It’s all a matter of organization. A steel company, or even a few, can quickly
decide to lobby for tariffs, and pay for the cost of the lobbying and organization with the
loot. The general public has a harder time organizing opposition, and it doesn’t make much
economic sense for any one person to devote a lot of time and energy into making it
happen.

The Bill of Rights acts as an automatic organizer. By making these lines in the sand
universally known, each person knows when the government has gone too far. Any
government that blatantly steps across the line will lose support. If it steps too far, it may
face a revolt.

What else limits the government like the Bill of Rights? Well, to some extent the
Constitution does. The President is limited in his ability to usurp the powers vested in the
other branches of the government. The elections are guided by clear rules of who wins and
loses, which, if this weren’t the case, any acting government would be able to make its
position permanent.

What other rules are there? Equality before the law is one. This was first developed to
make sure the rulers were governed by their own rules. Under a democracy, it helps to
prevent collectivist policies by treating every individual the same. And it prevents the
government from doing a "divide and conquer" approach to enslavement. Equality before
the law helps prevent this:

"First they came for the Jews…"

The list goes on. Trial by jury ensures that a jury of peers, and not merely a government
agency, is necessary for imprisonment. Separation of Powers ensures that federal power is
distributed where it’s safer. Checks and balances allow one branch of government to rein
in another. Federalism also tries to distribute power, as well as keeping it as local as
possible where it can be controlled. Due process requires the government to have a
consistent method in its application of power. And the list goes on. Rule of Law,
democratic elections, "No taxation without representation," the non-initiation-of-force
principle, etc., etc.

Each of these rules or principles helps defend us against tyranny. They put the
government in a position of knowing that if they cross these lines, there will be objections.
They inform the public that we cannot allow the slightest compromise of these principles,
or they will be lost to us completely. These are the barriers to tyranny, and the foundations
of freedom.

Taxation

No discussion of government is complete without talking about the base of its power,
taxation. Taxation is the means by which a government funds itself. It forcibly takes money
from its citizens and spends it on its own ends.

Objectivists generally consider taxation to be just another form of theft, but at a scope larger
than any known to man. That people who claim to represent us are doing the taxation doesn't

133

change the nature of it. The fact that the money is demanded, with the threat of violence
lurking in the background, means it is not voluntary.

One of the issues with taxation is the people spending it may have a very different opinion
about how much money is needed to do their job "right" than the people who have to pay for
it. When the people spending the money also get to decide how much they get to spend, it's a
really perverse incentive that leads to greater and greater taxation.

Taxation is always one of the big question marks as far as the government goes. How does
one fund a government without taxation? It's a difficult problem. Rounding up criminals off
the street or protecting the nation from invasions are things everyone benefits from. You've
got a possibility that people will not pay for it since they'll just get it for free. Is that a
problem? If there's enough money anyway, it might be okay, even though it seems unfair.

Most people don't really believe that voluntary contributions to the government will work.
People would have to be pretty enlightened to see the need for the government and dig into
their own wallets to help out. The usual criticism of the voluntary contributions is that people
aren't smart enough to do it, even if their lives are at stake. It's something that can be argued,
but most Objectivists assume that the culture will have to advance a bit before we can shrink
government down to the level where we can get rid of taxation entirely.

There are other possibilities for government funding. Since government are needed to enforce
contract laws, businesses could require a government approval for any contracts, which
requires a small fee for registering the contract. These contract fees could bring in a bit of
revenue for the government, and are legitimately connected to the purpose of the government.

There are plenty of other ideas thrown around. Government lotteries bring in lots of money,
but only because they outlaw competition. The US government has a huge amount of
resources (national forests, etc), that it could sell off and run on just the interest. There could
be fees charged for other services besides contracts. Or you could have to pay in order to
participate in the government itself (i.e., voting).

There are also some Objectivists who argue that taxation may actually be morally legitimate.
The reasoning is that morality deals with choices. If there is in fact is no way of funding a
government without taxation, and government is necessary, then the taxation can't be
considered immoral. If there is no choice, it can't be immoral. There's no such thing as a
necessary evil.

The reasoning is correct, if they could prove that taxation is in fact necessary. Although there
are questions about the likelihood of any particular means of government financing, that's a
far cry from proving any of it impossible. And the burden of proof rests on those who would
claim the need to steal from us, a burden they haven't come close to meeting.

134

What about Anarchy?

The Objectivist position of government is best summarized by the phrase "minimal
government". It's the view that the government should just protect rights, and should have
minimal impact in our lives. It's sometimes referred to as "minarchism".

Anarchism, on the other hand, is the view that no government is necessary or desirable. I want
to bring up some of the more common reasons given for the anarchist position since you'll
almost certainly deal with them in the Objectivist world.

The first reason given to support anarchism is the efficiency of free markets. By allowing
competition between companies, they have to compete with one another through better value
for your dollar. Why not allow governments to do the same thing? Why not allow
competition, and then the world will get better and better?

This is what Rand called the fallacy of the stolen concept. That means that the concept is used
while denying or ignoring it's necessary foundation. In this case, a free-market doesn't
automatically, magically provide good results. It's because the use of force is outlawed
between the companies, and the customers are allowed to not deal with any of them, that they
have to offer the customer values for trade, and they have to offer the most. If governments
themselves compete, that assumption of freedom, and the inability to use force, is not valid.
The governments are dealing with force. Some anarchists still try to claim that "market
forces" will make it all work out, but it all rests on this false foundation.

A different approach to arguing for anarchism is that minarchism is necessary immoral. The
first version of this is a weird interpretation of Rand's writings. She discussed government as
having a monopoly of force in a geographic region. And of course, monopolies are bad. More
to the point, this would seem to mean that self-defense is illegal, you can't have private
security firms, etc. Minarchists don't suggest any of these things, so this argument is one that
confuses a definition with a concept.

Another reason a minimal state is considered bad is because it taxes people. The fact that
minarchists believe it is possible to fund a government voluntarily is ignored because it
sounds too difficult. It's never clear how 50 anarchist governments are able to be funded but 1
is impossible. So this is applying a different standard for the two.

Another reason governments are considered immoral is because no government has even been
created as a minimal state, or stayed that way. The United States was considered an excellent
start (minus slavery, unequal rights for women, and a lot of other problems), but the parts it
did get right at the beginning slowly gave ground to government abuse. So anarchists assume
that since government has never been constrained in the past, it's an impossible job. Again,
the standard for anarchy is different. Since anarchies have always historically ended in
government, it should make their alternative sound equally impossible. This is conveniently
ignored.

But no discussion of anarchism would be complete without asking the fundamental question.
Why do we need government in the first place? I've explored the human need for the harmony

135

of interests, the protection of individual rights and consequently the ability to use retaliatory
force, and with that the epistemological issues of determining across a society whether an act
was an initiation of a retaliation. How does anarchism solve this problem?

The market anarchists suggest that their competing firms will have "market incentives" to
come to peaceful conclusions. They suggest that they'll hire third-party arbiters to decide
whether a use of force of proper or not. The problem there, which again is epistemological, is
that if the two firms have different standards of what is proper or not, they won't be able to
come to a resolution. Inviting a third party in to reconcile two different standards of
evaluation won't help. In practice, then, a conflict either requires one firm to not use force as
they believe appropriate, or they go to war with the other firm. In other words, either the job
of the protection agency is dropped in a conflict, or one agency destroys another. If we have a
need for retaliatory force, the first means is not an option. And if the second means is used,
you have consolidation into a single government.

But so far that's just discussed the legislative side of government, meaning it's only covered
the different standards. What happens if two competing agencies actually agree on the
standards? This again makes us refer to the epistemological needs related to government. If
one agency decides that someone has initiated force, and decides to retaliate, what does the
other agency do? It would have to convince itself that this new act of force is not an initiation
itself, or it might decide to retaliate.

In other words, the whole epistemological issue is opened up again. The agencies will have to
agree on every instance of retaliatory force or one will believe the other is initiating force.
Again, if there's a conflict, war is the only solution.

Just to go through all the possibilities, what happens if the agencies decide that they both have
to agree before either uses retaliatory force? In that case, by solving the epistemological
issues, they actually form a single government. They've combined their two agencies into a
single agency where cooperation is necessary.

The discussions and debates on anarchism have lasted for decades and are probably not near
an end. My personal belief is that the anarchists crave a system where they are free from
taxation or government intervention, and fantasize about a system where you can always just
walk away from the existing government. They've arrived at their conclusions based on their
desires, and not based on logic and reasoning. They then try to support their fantasy with
reasoning, but it usually involves applying a different standard between minimal government
and anarchism, or relying on stolen concepts or utopian premises.

Self-Defense and Guns

In discussing the issue of retaliatory force, we can see why a government is necessary to
clarify when a use of force is appropriate or not. This is certainly useful before the force has
been used, so that you can avoid any inappropriate use and potentially being retaliated
against.

136

The government may do fine with using retaliatory force after a crime has been committed,
but that's not very comforting for someone who's life is in danger during an actual crime. The
police can't be there to defend you, so you have to be able to do it yourself. While most acts of
retaliatory force have to be okayed or go through the government itself, self-defense must be
left to the individual.

Self-defense has a number of requirements. First, the individual must have the means to
protect himself. In today's world, firearms are the best means of accomplishing that
protection. A gun is a great equalizer. Without a gun, physical strength may decide who wins
or loses. A gun makes physical strength a non-issue.

Consequently, the right to gun ownership is important. Governments typically oppose this
because a well-armed populace is harder to control. There are also unfounded myths like gun
control reduce violent crimes. There are many books on gun control vs. gun ownership,
although Objectivists generally side with gun ownership. The Objectivist position stems from
the right to self-defense, which means allowing people to own the tools that will really protect
them.

Self-defense also requires the government have clear methods of determining when you're
able to use force in self-defense, and how much force is appropriate. This usually involves the
threat of physical harm, or the reasonable belief that there is such a threat. Under correct
conditions, a person is able to defend himself, others, and potentially his property.

Self-defense has some potentially interesting legal aspects. The government usually has
evidence that you've killed or injured someone, and you have to prove that it was in self-
defense. Where does the burden of proof rest? Normally, the burden of proof is on the
government to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you've committed a crime. But when you
make the assertion that it was self-defense, the burden of proof falls to you. What standards
does a government use to determine guilt in this kind of case? That's beyond the scope of this
discussion, but you can see that self-defense can be treated in a non-standard way in the legal
system.

I can't discuss guns without bring up another important implication of widespread gun
ownership. One method of ensuring that a government does not become tyrannical is
widespread gun ownership. The government would have to try to fight and control an armed
population, which is virtually impossible. Yes they could win any direct skirmishes, but
controlling a population that can shoot your administrators at any time is a significant task.
The historic reality is that government disarm the population before becoming tyrannical as a
practical necessity.

So widespread gun ownership not only allows individual self-defense, but it also has value in
defending against government abuse. This is true for both foreign and domestic governments.
An invading army would have a difficult time occupying an armed nation that wants to resist.

137

Esthetics

Themes of Esthetics

Let's start the discussion of Esthetics. It's one of the least understood and accepted branches of
Objectivism. As with all the branches, it might be helpful to discuss some of the major themes
of Objectivists Esthetics. But before we do that, let's just do a quick recap of what esthetics is
all about.

Esthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the concepts, purpose, and standards of
evaluation of art. It asks why man needs art, and what function it provides. By determining
the need, it provides a means to define and evaluate art, and relate it to our own lives.

The first theme of esthetics is understanding man's need for art. This is a crucial part of
esthetics. If art has no purpose, it can't be defined or evaluated. If there is a purpose, it sets the
standards for all further discussions. Without a relationship to man's life, art would have no
objective value to man. Without a purpose, anything and everything could be called art, and
the term would become meaningless.

The second theme of esthetics is objectivity. That theme runs through every branch of
Objectivism, but it's worth noting in particular here. Art is often viewed as a subjective field
of knowledge or value, making communication about it impossible. Due to the very personal
nature of people's reactions to art, it's a sensitive area that people often don't want to think
about in terms of objectivity. But knowledge must be in objective terms, or it doesn't count as
real understanding.

Reactions to art are emotional and can be very powerful. Our reactions don't tell us whether
the art is good or bad, or even why we're reacting to it the way we do. Our reactions alone
cannot be used as a method of judging the art itself. Esthetics deals with the connection
between art and our emotions. The third theme is understanding this relationship.

A final theme of esthetics is that the form of the art impacts the message of it. Art is not a
homogenous set of tools. Each form of art has limitations and strengths, and we need to
identify what they are, and why they exist. The point here is that art works in a specific way,
and satisfies a specific purpose, so we should be able to see how the different forms of art
vary.

Man's Need for Art

To get to the heart of esthetics, we have to start at the beginning. What is the purpose of art?
What is the human need that art attempts to satisfy? What is it in the nature of man that
creates this need, and how important is it to our lives?

The Objectivists theory of esthetics starts in Epistemology. We've already discussed man's
conceptual nature, and talked about the hierarchical theory of knowledge. The hierarchical
theory of knowledge says that our conceptual knowledge is organized into various levels, with

138

some levels more distant from perception, our grounding to reality. By having abstractions of
abstractions, you wield more powerful concepts that encompass larger and larger parts of
reality.

One of the side-effects of the hierarchical theory of knowledge is that the more abstract the
concepts, the farther removed from reality they are. As we've seen earlier, this doesn't affect
the objectivity of the concepts. The concepts still include all of the referents. So the
objectivity is intact.

The issue is really about clarity. When you form abstractions, there are varying degrees of
clarity involved. Without intentionally identifying the conceptual common denominator,
forming a definition, and reviewing the referents of the concept, you may have a fuzzy
understanding of it. Many people understand concepts in a vague way. When you start
abstracting from abstractions, the vagueness is multiplied. Without a solid foundation, the
higher you go the worse it gets.

Let's try looking at an example. Justice is a very complicated high level abstraction. Imagine
trying to discuss justice without having a solid understanding of what morality is. Without
explicit standards for moral judgment, you'd have to argue in very general terms, and would
probably resort to emotional examples.

But even if you're careful about being clear at each level, the issue still exists. The concepts
more distant from perception are harder to grasp in the same way. It becomes harder to point
to anything as an example because the referents of the concepts are concepts themselves.
Remember how concepts are formed by finding similarities among things that are different
from others. To concretize a concept, you need only see examples that show these
similarities/differences clearly. When you abstract to a higher level, you have so many more
referents that you need in order to make all of these contrasts. Tying these concepts to the
perceptual level can be difficult.

The real issue here is that your higher level concepts may lack the immediacy and clarity of
your lower level concepts (those closest to perception). As we expand our knowledge and
scope of understanding or activity, we come to rely on abstract principles more and more, and
yet the concepts become more difficult to use and to keep clear.

This brings us to the basic human need that art is supposed to address. We need a way of
taking our most complex abstraction, and bring them down to a more concrete level where we
can really get a good grasp of them. This is especially true for our view of the world and our
role in the world, two extremely abstract ideas that are critical to our lives. Art needs to be
able to bring these abstract idea into focus and make them clear to us.

To recap, our conceptual form of awareness, and the hierarchical system of knowledge, are
incredibly powerful tools of grasping the world. But they create their own challenges that we
need to overcome in order to better utilize the tools. We need to be able to use abstract
knowledge easily and with confidence. We need to take our abstract knowledge and
strengthen its connection to reality by bringing it into a more concrete form.

139

This is the purpose of art.

What Art Does

In the last lecture, we identified that man's conceptual nature requires that he find a way of
better grasping his high level abstractions. His views of life, the world, and his role in it, are
of particular importance. Art has the ability to satisfy this need by projecting a view of the
world into a concrete, integrated vision that we can grasp clearly and directly.

The specific function art performs is bringing complex abstractions down to a more
perceptual level. By making the experience of the abstraction more immediate and clear, you
get a stronger grasp of it. You can see what the abstraction means in very concrete terms.

In The Fountainhead, Rand was able to convey the abstract concept of independent judgment.
Howard Roark embodied the idea of thinking for himself. In fact, he seemed to be immune to
the opinions and expectations of others. He didn't think to care about what other people
thought, and so kept a focus on his own values and reality. If you wanted to understand the
concept of independent judgment, Howard Roark is the purest embodiment.

Imagine reading an essay on the topic instead. It wouldn't be difficult to explain the idea.
Think for yourself, and don't let the fact that other people believe something affect your own
judgment. The fact that they think or believe something is not in itself reason to accept it as
true. It's a very simple idea. But putting it into practice, or even seeing the full implications of
it is difficult, is more difficult. How do you approach business? How do you interact with
friends? How do you deal with people who don't like you? How do you deal with people who
themselves are swayed by second-hand values?

With Howard Roark clear in your head, it's easy. He's so concrete, you get a strong sense of
what he's like. He takes all of these abstract ideas and integrates them into a concrete from.
Even though he represents a fairly abstract idea, his portrayal makes it very tangible. You can
imagine his character in a situation and see how he might act or react. You can simply ask
"Would Howard Roark do something like this?".

And that's the power of art. It can take these complex abstractions and connect them more to
reality. But it does more than just providing a concrete example of an abstract idea. It can
actually presents a concrete example that embodies the abstraction.

Embodying the abstraction means providing an example that displays vividly the essential
characteristics of the concept. The art has to put emphasis on the defining attributes of the
concept. It can do this in a number of ways. It can integrate the rest of the artwork around
those traits. It can provide a contrast that highlights the characteristics. For instance, by
contrasting Peter Keating with Howard Roark, Roark's own qualities are brought into clear
focus. Without the contrast, he'd be an interesting character, but with it his attributes are
magnified.

140

This all revolves around the theme of tying concepts more closely to reality, so we can grasp
them better, use them with ease, and even build upon them. This is an incredibly important
human need. To deal successfully with the world, we need to better integrate our ideas and
use complex abstractions to focus on important facets of reality. Art magnifies the power of
these abstractions, allowing us to continue to grow and improve our understanding of the
world, and consequently improve how we live our own lives.

Normative Abstractions

So far I've emphasized the ability of art to concretize abstractions. I haven't discussed the
kinds of abstractions art can concretize, but it's important. Rand distinguished between
cognitive abstractions, and normative abstractions.

The cognitive abstractions deal with understanding the world as it is. Cognition is about
knowledge. When we identify how something works, or the nature of an entity, we're dealing
with cognitive abstractions. If we say that gravity pulls objects towards each other, with the
earth pulling us downwards to it, we're using cognitive abstractions. When we identify that
dogs hunt in packs in nature, we're using cognitive abstractions. When we say that we went to
a movie last weekend, we're describing facts, and thus are using cognitive abstractions.
Cognition deals with identification of facts.

Normative abstractions deal with what should be, instead of just what is. Ethics is normative,
suggesting what we should do, instead of just describing what we are doing or have done. The
virtue of honesty is a normative abstraction, guiding us to live in a way that keeps us out of
conflict with the truth.

Normative abstractions are in some ways far more complicated than cognitive abstractions.
One reason is because they build off of the cognitive abstractions. You have to have an
understanding of what is, before you can make statements about what should be. Statements
about what ought to be need to be based on what is true.

There's another reason why normative abstractions are more complicated. They deal with
much more far reaching topics. Think about what you need in order to make a suggestion
about what you should do. For instance, what do you need to know in order to suggest
honesty as a good policy?

You have to understand the world is knowable, and that knowledge can be false. You have to
understand that false ideas can be intentionally promoted or accepted. You have to understand
that faking an idea doesn't make it true, as the world has identity, and the consequences of an
action based on a false idea will be undesirable. You have to understand the epistemological
difficulties related to maintaining a lie in the face of evidence. You have understand that if
others find out you lied, it will damage your relationship, which can have further negative
consequences. You have to understand your own life is impacted by these choices.

This just scratches the surface of what you need to know just to see the benefits of the policy
of honesty. And this is just one normative abstraction, and one of the easier ones to grasp.

141

And further, to suggest it as an appropriate policy, one needs to be able to compare it to other
policies, and understand those effects. Normative abstractions rely on a vast amount of
knowledge, and deal with an incredible number of circumstances or scenarios. They require
an integrated view of existence in order to make suggestions of how to act accordingly.

It's in the light of these enormously complex abstractions that the real purpose and power of
art can be seen. It's these normative abstractions that need to be brought down into a concrete,
manageable form. We need to solidify our understanding of what should be, if we're going to
use that knowledge effectively.

There's a further problem of integration. Understanding how any particular virtue can be
beneficial doesn't convey much about how a person should live his life. Art can solve this
problem by integrating these normative abstractions into a single, unified character. It has the
capability of presenting a moral ideal, a vision of what life should be like, and what an ideal
person can and should be like.

A Re-creation of Reality

So far, the focus has been on what is the purpose of art. We've seen how our conceptual
thinking creates a need for concretization of abstractions. We've seen how normative
abstractions in particular require this "bringing closer to reality" so we can use them
effectively. The question that remains is, how exactly does art fulfill these needs?

The answer is that it shows us. The goal of art is not to communicate ideas, but to make them
visible. It does this by creating a vision of the world, and our role in it. Art does this by re-
creating reality.

Art creates an image of the world. That doesn't mean a landscape. It can be pretty much
anything. The important thing is that the art says "This is important!". Whatever the subject of
the piece, the artist is proclaiming that he thinks that subject is important enough to put at the
center of a piece of art. That subject becomes the center of the world created by the artist.
Whether the subject is displayed on a canvas, or in the words of a story, or in a symphony, it
is the center of the piece of art's universe.

Since the artist is portraying a vision of the world, it should be recognizable as such. By
having identifiable elements from the real world, it's better able to show a vision of the world.
When no recognizable elements exist, the message the is conveyed is that the world is
unknowable, and our minds are impotent to deal with it. Adding realistic elements, grounding
the art in the real world, is sometimes called realism.

Imagine a painting of a family picnic. By picking that as the topic, the art says this is what life
and the world is like. At a superficial level, this might convey a world of peace and comfort,
with loved ones and leisure. It might convey a world there isn't much going on, and simple
pleasures are seen as the point of living. I say this is superficial because the art is far more
complex than just a choice of subject matter. How it's done can make it convey a very
different kind of world.

142

Let me make a comparison to help clarify things. If an novelists creates an imaginary world of
magic and dragons, he's creating an imaginary world. But that's not what is meant by a re-
creation of reality. The imaginary world is just a device, and part of the bigger package. The
re-creation takes place by seeing what the characters do in that world, how they interact, what
kind of goals they have, what kind of obstacles they overcome, etc. The imaginary world is
taken as a metaphor, and the other details are seen in relation to the real world.

By re-creating the world, the art goes beyond mere recording of the world. It becomes an
embodiment of an understanding of the world. It takes an incredibly complex topic like what
do you think of the world or what do you think about life, and creates a clear image of that
answer. It's through this means that the art is able to bring our widest abstraction down to a
concrete form.

Metaphysical Value-Judgments

Since a piece of art amounts to saying "this is important", and re-creates reality, the art will
convey something called metaphysical value-judgments. These aren't ordinary values or
value-judgment. They're evaluations of the world itself, and how compatible it is with human
flourishing. They're judgments about the nature of life, and whether it's good or bad.

Metaphysical value-judgments are answers to fundamental evaluative questions about the
world. Here are some examples. Is the world knowable? Are we fit for survival? Are men
good or evil by nature? Do we have the ability to choose? Is happiness attainable? Can we
make plans for the future? Is there a supernatural being who controls us by whim? Do we
have the power to set the course for our lives?

These kinds of questions are not just factual questions. They ask about things that have a
significant impact on our lives. They ask about the elements that make the world suitable for
living in.

These metaphysical value-judgments are an important part of the art work. If the art re-creates
reality, the metaphysical value-judgments say what kind of world it is. It goes beyond simply
showing the world. It conveys an evaluation of the world. But it does so by embedding the
evaluation into the view of the world itself. The world that's shown in the art is built around
the evaluation.

Let's take some examples, recognizing that evaluating art is fairly complex and I'm
simplifying things. Now if the artist conveys a world full of misery and suffering, he's
showing that he believe that is the nature of life. The art doesn't just have someone offering
their appraisal of it as full of suffering or misery. The actual world shown by the art is full of
it. The metaphysical value-judgment determines the way the art is conveyed.

Ayn Rand talked about naturalistic literature, which aims to convey the world "as it is",
instead of how it should be. The intent is to create believable characters we are likely to meet
in real life. The characters end up flawed, ignorant, lowest common-denominator, etc. The
events in their lives are dull and pointless. When something interesting happens in the book, it

143

happens to the characters, not because of them. The general impression is a lowly world
where heroes and greatness is impossible, where people don't control their own lives or try to
make anything of them.

When metaphysical value-judgments are conveyed, you can see how this can help concretize
normative abstractions, as we mentioned earlier. The art can go beyond conveying what the
world is, and instead create a view of what the world should be like. In this way, art can
convey a moral ideal. It can show us what our lives should be like, and act as a beacon to
guide our own choices.

Selectivity and Art

A key component in art is selectivity. It hasn't been mentioned before, but you can't make any
sense of the previous lectures without it. When an artist re-creates reality, he does it through a
process of selection. He selects the subject of the work. He selects the style. He selects every
detail, deciding whether it's important and adds to the work, or subtracts from it.

This massive process of selection is key to understanding why art conveys the idea "this is
important". The artist has to pick each element. If he adds or subtracts a detail, it's because of
his own evaluation of the importance of it. With every detail intentional, every detail is
viewed as important.

If a painting just had random items, it wouldn't convey anything. But because it was created
through this intense process of selection, every detail conveys importance. That's why the
work of art is a re-creation of reality. Each piece, by picking only what is deemed as
important, makes a statement about what in the world is really important. It focuses on the
essentials. And when viewed in that light, the work becomes a representation of the world. It
says "this is what's important in the world".

This is how metaphysical value-judgments are conveyed. The art says that the details it
presents are what's really important. Those details can judged as being representative of the
entire world. Because of their implied significance, the evaluations of those details make a
wider statements about the world itself.

The metaphysical value-judgments come from the artist himself. Through this intense process
of selection, his own judgments about the world come through. What he selects in his art is
based on what he thinks is important based on his own judgments about the world, and his art
will reflect that.

An artist may try to convey a subject that doesn't really fit his own view of the world. We see
that in Objectivist circles sometimes, where an aspiring author will try to write what he thinks
an Objectivist should write about. But the process of selection means his own metaphysical
value-judgments will shine through. If the subject matter is not really his own, there will be a
clash of metaphysical value-judgments conveyed, and the result will be contradictory and
uninspiring.

144

Sense of Life

Sense of Life is a phrase that is used most frequently in Objectivist esthetics, but like many
other esthetic concepts, has its roots in epistemology.

A Sense of Life is an emotional evaluation of the world. It is subconsciously formed through a
process of emotional integration. It integrates one's emotions and value-judgments. Since it is
an automatic process, it begins with one's first emotional judgments about the world long
before the capacity to rationally judge the world has been achieved. It is because of this that
one's Sense of Life can differ radically from one's explicit metaphysical view. Although the
two relate, and affect one another, there is no causal connection.

A Sense of Life differs from simple emotions. It is not an emotional evaluation of one's
metaphysical views, whether implicit or explicit. A Sense of Life is not programmed by a
single evaluation. It is an integration of countless evaluations. Over the course of one's life, it
integrates emotions and value-judgments related to all aspects of living. A Sense of Life is the
sum of these emotions and value-judgments. This is the method by which it acts as an
emotional evaluation of the world. Not directly through a concept of the world and an
appropriate judgment, but a complex summation of judgments about every aspect of the world
one has made.

Sense of Life is like an emotional worldview. It doesn't convey what the world is like, but it
does convey how you feel about it. It's an emotional basis for judging the world. If someone
had a negative Sense of Life, they might always look for some hidden cost, or look every gift
horse in the mouth. They might fear the worst, and when good things happen, they might not
really believe it. Remember that this does not necessarily reflect their explicit philosophy. It's
just the way they feel about the world.

Sense of Life is important in the field of esthetics because it helps us answer why it is people
respond the way they do to a piece of art. The art itself doesn't create an emotional reaction. A
piece of art could convey a happy view of the world, for instance. But depending on whether
that view resonates with the viewer, it may not create the same emotion. Someone who's
sense of life agrees with the view may feel happiness, but other's might feel fear, hatred,
sorrow, or anything else. The reactions are based on how the viewer's Sense of Life reacts
with the view of the world being conveyed.

You can see how the artist's metaphysical value-judgments would have a particularly strong
reaction with a viewer's Sense of Life. If the viewer's emotional view of the world conflicts
with the metaphysical value-judgments being conveyed, they may be left repulsed by the
work. If the two align well, they may be attracted to it.

In this way, art can fulfill a larger purpose for the viewer. It has the ability to act as a
confirmation of his view of existence, or a denial of it. When it confirms his view, he can feel
that his own view of the world is essentially correct, and feel a confidence that comes from
knowing that he's properly identified the world.

145

If the view of existence clashes with the work of art, it can be taken as an attack on the
efficacy of his mind. He'll feel that his own worldview, or the emotional equivalent, is being
challenged. And in turn, that appears as a challenge to the effectiveness of his mind, since it
was his mind that came to that view of the world.

Judging Art

Art is a complex and powerful tool. When judging it, you have to be careful. It takes quite a
bit of specialized knowledge to make a really effective judgment about art. The goal of this
section is to just discuss the criteria for judgment. The actual details of such a judgment are
more of a science, with all the benefits of specialized knowledge and technical mastery. We
want to stick to the philosophical elements, and not pretend to be experts.

The first way to judge art is by looking at the purpose it fulfills. If the art is supposed to
embody some kind of worldview, the first question one could ask is what kind of worldview
does it convey. The world presented, with all of the metaphysical value-judgments, can be
judged on whether it present a positive view of the world, or a negative one. Is it life-
affirming art, or life-negating? Are the value-judgments presented factually correct?

If a piece of art shows a world where people live in misery, and human happiness is
impossible, the art can be judged based on the validity of those themes. Not only is it factually
incorrect, but presents a view of the world that, if believed, would negate our lives. If the art
presented a world where fate controls everyone, and people are helpless against it, it is
promoting determinism. The result is that people don't bother with the process of living
because they think they'll fail or that theirs no point.

So the worldview presented can be evaluated. Is it worse then the real world? Does it negate
human values? Or does it emphasize human values? Does it show that success and happiness
are possible? And even if it does, what kind of values does it present? What view of happiness
is seen as possible? A worldview could be presented that a shallow, mindless, hedonistic kind
of happiness is the goal in life. Clearly we can judge that.

A different way of judging art is to look at how effective it is at presenting a re-creation of
reality. If the view of the world is clear and well integrated, it more powerfully brings the
abstraction to the concrete level. If it's contradictory or poorly selected, the abstraction
remains abstract. In other words, does it actually fulfill it's purpose of concretizing an
abstraction?

There are many factors that can help you make such a judgment. One could focus on the
artistic medium, and whether it effectively conveys the idea. One could focus on the style, and
whether it adds to the effectiveness, or subtracts. One could focus on technique and mastery.
Each element can add or subtract from the re-creation of reality.

For instance, how could one present a view that life is full of turmoil and hardships when you
use cartoon characters in your painting. How can you present a view of beauty and
breathtaking passion when your technique is so poor that it comes off an ugly parody.

146

One can also look at the subject matter itself, and whether it's really compatible with the
metaphysical value-judgments being presented. Or one could look at the level of integration
of the piece.

Rand discussed how one could recognize a piece of art as being great, while disagreeing with
the message it conveys or the world it portrays. You can recognize that a piece is very well
done, great integration, perfect selection, and masterful technique, and disagree completely
with it. The two are different standards.

Finally, one could judge it by your own personal reaction to it. You can say "I love this". You
should be clear that this is a different kind of judgment from the other two. Your own
emotional reaction can be partly based on a Sense of Life reaction to the art. It can also be
based on an emotional reaction spurred by some other trigger, like enjoying a painting
because you had a dog that looks just like the one on the canvas.

Keep in mind that these three kind of judgments are different, although not necessarily
independent. A very well done piece of art, strongly conveying metaphysical value-
judgments, is more likely to create a strong Sense of Life reaction in a person. The
metaphysical value-judgments conveyed will factor into what kind of reaction will take place.
But it's not necessary. A great piece of art may have little affect on you, whereas you may
respond emotionally to something that's not technically proficient.

Forms of Art

There are only a few primary forms of art, and these are ancient. In no particular order, they
include literature, the visual arts (painting and sculpture) and music. Each form re-creates
reality in a different way, and so has its own peculiar strengths and limitations. The kind of
world it can convey is dependent on its means.

Literature re-creates reality through the use of concepts. It uses words to describe and show a
view of the world. In story form, it uses characters and plot to show a world. In poetry, it uses
style and imagery. Because it uses concepts to portray the re-creation of reality, it has a harder
time dealing with very visual themes. While it can describe higher level concepts in many
ways and provide context for them, it doesn't have the ability to simply point at reality. In
other words, the form of the art has strengths and weaknesses.

The visual arts can literally show us a view of the world. Sculpture deals with three-
dimensional forms, with the best examples being the human form. They portray the visual
equivalent of a concept. A sculpture might show beauty, or grace, or innocence, playfulness,
etc. It is able to capture body language and integrate it with pose and form. While other
subjects of sculpture are possible, the human form is able to convey metaphysical value-
judgments about human life in the world.

Paintings also deal with a visual representation of the world. Their range of subjects is much
wider. They can portray situations, events, and the world itself. They're able to convey the full

147

range of metaphysical value-judgments, including the views of the world itself.

The visual arts are slices in time, so they can have difficulty in conveying action, or plots, or
motivations, or anything else where time can better express something. Literature is better
equipped to deal with those kind of abstractions. It's not impossible for the visual arts to deal
with them, but it makes it more difficult.

Music is a very complicated form of art to discuss. While Rand had some thoughts on the
topic, she wasn't definitive. Music uses sound in order to convey abstractions. The sound can
mirror how the human voice conveys emotions, or how the human body moves in certain
moods. It can be fast paced and carefree, or drooping and halting. By relating these sounds to
our own experiences with people, the art can convey emotions.

Since it uses sound as its means of communication, it has difficulty conveying specific ideas.
It's more of patterns and actions and relationships. It does have an element of time, so is able
to communicate change, but it remains fairly abstract.

While these are the basic forms of art, there are many others. Some are variations or
combinations of these. A movie might combine music, literature (characters and plot), and
visual arts. But the movie is primarily a derivative of literature, and the other elements are
added to enhance it, but aren't primary.

Photography may be of the same class as painting, in the visual arts. There's always some
debate over whether photography counts as art. The issue is that the level of selectivity is so
much smaller (in a painting, it's 100% both on subject but on every single detail). With that
little selectivity, does it really convey metaphysical value-judgments? And even if it does,
how effective is it?

Other forms of art include dance, which you can consider a derivative of music. Or singing,
another derivative of music. Architecture might be a variant of sculpture, where the building
itself conveys metaphysical value-judgments. And there are probably others.

There are always questions about whether a particular form really is art. The question can
only be answered by reference to the purpose of art, how much selectivity is really possible,
and accordingly whether metaphysical value-judgments are possible.

148

Conclusion

In many ways, it's impossible to be complete when explaining a philosophy like Objectivism.
The implications are so wide-reaching. There are logical connections throughout the various
ideas. There's a ton of empirical support for it. And you could focus on flawed philosophies to
see how it stacks up against them.

Given the inability to be complete, and the time constraints on creating this series of lectures,
I aimed to present the philosophy in a systematic way that would give a solid basis for the
user to understand the philosophy, and be able to fill in details over time. The emphasis on the
structure of the philosophy, and the themes in each branch of the philosophy, were intended to
help integrate the various ideas into a cohesive package. To really understand the philosophy,
you have to be able to see the big picture and how the elements fit together. The process
doesn't end here. This is just the beginning.

I do recommend reading Ayn Rand's books, both fiction and non-fiction. The fiction is able to
integrate these ideas in a way that a lecture can't possibly accomplish. The non-fiction is good
just to hear it from the source. You don't need to take my word on what Objectivism is when
you can read the original articles. Her writings are also filled with wonderful insights, colorful
phrases, and powerful themes.

I welcome feedback on these lectures. If you found them useful, please let me know. And it
would be great to hear what you found useful so my future efforts can be more effective.
Thank you.

The End

Document Outline

Contents
Philosophy
- What is philosophy?
- Structure of Philosophy
Epistemology
Metaphysics
More Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Esthetics
Conclusion

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
Lecture 10 Advanced object programming
Lecture 101 2010 ML
Lecture 10 Advanced Object Programming Short
IR Lecture1
IntroductoryWords 2 Objects English
uml LECTURE
lecture3 complexity introduction
Sem II Transport, Podstawy Informatyki Wykład XXI Object Pascal Komponenty
196 Capital structure Intro lecture 1id 18514 ppt
6 ABAP Objects
101 Garb zniewolenia sowieckiegoid 11503 ppt
Lecture VIII Morphology
benzen lecture
ref 2004 04 26 object pascal
lecture 1

więcej podobnych podstron

Objectivism 101 Lectures

Document Outline