What does it mean to be an objectivist (the wikipedia definition is very very confusing, and example of how an objectivist would think might help me out)?
After reading For a new liberty (im halfway through), i kinda want to study human action ( i say kinda since im not sure if i should read more about the economics itself, or more political oriented works, but at the same time i think learning the philosophy/methodology is very important to understanding), and the austrian’s methodology and things similar to this kind of stuff.
What books would you guys reccommend starting off, if not books then lectures/youtube vids?
I’d go straight to the source and read Rand. She is an intelligent and often evocative author. The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal are all worth reading, as is Atlas Shrugged.
For Objectivist theory generally, I’d read David Kelley and his Logical Structure of Objectivism. Roderick Long has an interesting book on Rand but it’s very, very difficult to get hold of and is very pricy. Reisman also writes from a Randian perspective and he is, I think, one of the most impressive Austrian thinkers.
On ethics, I’d go for Hoppe, John Harsanyi, Nozick, David Schmidtz (Elements of Justice), Anthony de Jasay, Jan Narveson, Stephan Kinsella (his estoppel approach) and David Friedman, as they have varying approaches which you can learn from. For more advanced reading on Rand’s ethics and a formulation of an Aristotelian ethical system of natural rights, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl are worth the effort.
On epistemology, again Hoppe and Mises. They’re insightful and very well read. Roderick Long’s work on Wittgenstein and generally most of the stuff he writes is of interest, as is the case with David Gordon, Leland Yeager, Henry Veatch (very good Aristotelian author), Geoffrey Alan Plauche, Daniel Sanchez and Barry Smith, and this site’s own Adam Knott. George Selgin has a great article on comprehending the praxeological method. Hollis and Nell (Rational Economic Man), Laurence Bonjour (In Defense of Pure Reason) and Brand Blanshard are also valuable reads. Generally speaking you’d benefit from reading Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel. I don’t agree with a lot of what they say, but they make you think. Most of the features I mentioned feature on the Mises website.
Needless to say, you should read Kant, Aristotle and Hume, and perhaps Plato. All philosophy revolves around them to some degree or other. You could probably add Nietzsche to that list. Quine and Popper are very influential and you could profit from reading them if only to understand some very popular philosophical currents.
Are austrian economists objectivists? Or it doesnt really matter?
I disagree with relativism, but i do not think that everything is absolute either (for if everything was relativie, then wouldnt that make it absolutist in the first place, therefore negating relativism?). One mans trash can be one mans treasure, and 4 will always be greater number than 3, what is the difference between absolutism and objectivism?
Nope, they’re mostly not Objectivist nor is Objectivism related much to Austrianism other than the act that Rand admired Mises. I think Objectivism is still worth educating oneself on, as it is based on an Aristotelian thought system and often approaches philosophical issues from a fresh perspective. Avoid the hardcore Peikoff type Randroids though. Peikoff himself has work I’d consider reading but without falling into that line of cultism.
Objectivism is not a relativist system of thought, no. Objectivism is a complete system of thought, encompassing epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics etc. Absolutism as you put it tends to be narrowed down to an epistemological position. I now wonder if you’re using the term “objectivist” (to be contrasted with a variety of subjectivist positions in different disciplines of philosophy) in its common philosophical usage or to refer to Ayn Rand’s brand of it.
An objectivist or “Objectivist” is a member of the cult of Rand. If you dont agree with every single thing rand said or wrote, you cannot be an objectivist. That said, go read We The Living, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and Atlas Shrugged as soon as you can, they are great books. The Virtue of Selfishness is a decent book if you want nonfiction, but I wouldnt get much deeper than that. But thats my opinion, I see you have already been reccomended some books I didnt know about so have fun.
This is the thrust of what it means to be in a cult. Your perspective mixed with some kind of (perceived) objective morality (that you hold, but others do not) is what creates religions and states.
Rothbard used to be great friends with Ayn Rand, and then she went ahead and insulted his wife. I’m sure there was more to it, but that seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Walter Block also knew Rand personally, and he seems to hold her in high regard.
But this is just coincidence. There is nothing about Austrian Economics that would cause its economists to be objectivists. In fact, most probably are not, seeing as many Austrian economists are anarchists, and that is directly at odds with objectivism.
Objectivism is Rand’s philosophy. Subjectivism is just realizing that values are subject and not objecive. Your clothes do not have an objective price. A burger is not objectively better than cereal. 4 is greater than 3, and that is not subjective. It does not depend upon a subject. Values require a subject to do the valuing.
Actually I’d say cults are pretty subjectivist based on the fact that they rely upon the authority of some individual (or super-individual) and a core of elites that interprets its word. This isn’t objective in any sense of the word.
Well it depends on how you are using the term. “Objectivism” tends to refer to the view that some thing out there (e.g. the truth, ethical values etc.) is objective i.e. independent of the mind.You can be committed to one type of objectivism without being committed to the other.
This is not the same as Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, which does take the objectivist position on a number of these questions but is its own thought system altogether. I think you need to focus your thoughts a little and try decide what it is you are trying to learn.
The reason why Objectivism and Austrianism are so close but have little overlap is because while they end up at the same libertarian policy prescriptions they do so through practically opposite ways, the first through the application of hard moral principles of how rational man should act while Austrianism is value-free and arrives at its conclusion through the assumption of radical subjectivism and the assumption that all actions are inherently of equal merit. While there is nothing that is explicitly contradictory here (except insofar as Austrianism contradicts any ethical system).
The reason why Objectivism is often labeled as a cult is because those who adhere to the philosophy tend to live by the word of Rand alone, focusing little on other points of view and deeming anyone who does not agree with them as religious and illogical. Furthermore the way the organization acted while Rand herself was alive was rather cultish, as you’ll read if you look into Rothbard’s writings on the subject.
As for your OP I don’t understand if you’re asking for advice on whether to look into Objectivism or further Austrianism or something else. Can you rephrase the question?
“Objectivism” is the name of the philosophy that Rand created, not to be confused with, for instance, a moral objectivist who believes that morals are objectively true and verifiable, observer-independent. Or anyone else who uses the term objectivist to denote a belief in objective reality as it pertains to something.
But depending on how you want to approach the subject, I might suggest certain works as higher priority and others as lesser priority.
For me, the Economics was the entry point, but my primary interest has always been the deeper systemic application of knowledge in general. In my youth, when I started to ask which party I embraced, I went to look at Political Philosophy. I embraced libertarian themes, and that lead to the economics of the Austrian School. I also found Objectivism as so many do.
But as I continued to dig, the desire systematically order and interconnect the various fields and views of the world such that “everything had its place” led me to continue to ask lots of questions and I ended up reading a lot of philosophy stuff, and thinking about many of the confusing questions of philosophy. Objectivism in many ways helped me understand the battleground, in particular the subjective/objective dualism. Which I came to embrace as the the dual reams of the is/ought problem. She embraced objective reality as preeminent over subjective reality. I agreed. So does Austrian Economics. However, her philosophy is predicated on collapsing the dualism into objectivism only. Mises however disagreed.
My disconnect there, is that rationality arises from the subjective nature of man. I didn’t understand how that mattered until I read The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. Everything fell into place for me in that book. Mises in that book embraced man’s subjective experience as the only experience of man. That all of the fundamental tools we examine in epistemology are givens from which we construct an objective interpretation of reality itself. But it doesn’t remove the subjective nature of the action man engages in, and in this way gives rise to the normative disciplines. The normative disciplines are inside the box, and cannot be divorced from value judgment. There may be general correlations, in terms of the social and personal side effects inside the human mind and in our social spheres that would be viewed as harmful and damaging, but he considered the ends at which a man aimed to be givens. In order to make her system work Rand embraced an Objective ideal, the survival of man. That is however a subjective value. That was the point Mises wouldn’t cross (ends as givens) and I embrace his courage and agree with him.
The reason there’s so much overlap in practice was that she rigorously articulated logical ethics of a man who seeks to not just survive but thrive. She embraced an Aristotelian view of reality and therefore employed Logic in describing the necessary side-effects of various political and ethical positions on the man himself and on society as a whole. Praxeology must therefore give similar if not identical conclusions. The difference simply being Rand stated them as absolute objective truth, instead of what they actually are is if then ethical propositions which a man then decides to embrace or discard based on his own desires.
So, if in the end, you are looking for a way to bind the various scientific or rational fields of man, into a coherent whole, be they physical or social sciences or philosophical disciplines, that book The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science(Mises) is the key. Theory and History(also Mises) is one others recommend and I’m reading it now.
If you’re primarily interested in the economic content, then Human Action is the book. You will still get a fair amount of the epistemological underpinnings in the early chapters.
Hoppe is also very good on the Epistemological aspects of Praxeology.
“In order to make her system work Rand embraced an Objective ideal, the survival of man. That is however a subjective value*.*”
Do you mean a value choice that is subjective as opposed to objective? Or do you mean a value choice that is personal, whether subjective or objective?
Rand embraced survival (qua man) as an ideal while explaining that until one makes that very same choice no values are possible at all. She identified the fact that the most fundamental alternative faced by all living entities is to pursue life or not (life/death, existence/non-existence, etc.) Only volitional living entities who choose to pursue life require values in order to achieve it. Consequently, the if/then proposition of Objectivist ethics is, "if you choose life, then values are necessary and life is the standard of their measure" -- both an if/then proposition and an absolute truth. Once one embraces that goal and grasps that one’s only means to achieve it is by the application of reason to action in production and trade, and grasps also that force is the only threat to one’s freedom to so apply it, Rand’s politics of absolute freedom from initiated force is inescapable.
The if/then propositions “which a man then decides to embrace or discard based on his own desires” are the subject of the descriptive science of economics so comprehensively well defined by Mises. But it is only the normative science of ethics that can evaluate those subjective (personal) choices as valid or invalid in reference to man’s nature and reality.
By this reasoning, an attempt failed or not to kill oneself, of to sacrifice oneself, would be to reject value. I think we’re conjoining two different contexts. Praxeology defines value as arising out of action. Value, in a thing (an object), arises out of the worthiness of the object toward a specific end. You are implying that in order to seek any end one must at a minimum have chosen to live. The fact that there is an exception, the end of suicide, implies that there’s a significant logical hole in the “seeking of life” as the prerequisite of having values. There are other exceptions. I prefer a looser supposition, that choice in and of itself, the fact that man acts purposefully is the source of the entire realm of normative phenomena, as the normative concept assumes intention. To say what normative ethics a man SHOULD have, when others are possible (though they may in fact be self-destructive by his own standard) is the application of intentionality to the system that intentioinality arises from. It’s either an infinite regression, OR the objective realm gives rise to the subjective realm and then objectively “judges” the actions that arise from action. In the second case then one cannot go back to the objective realm to find objective roots for the subjective choice, but must instead look in the opposite direction and give objective analysis of outcomes for a specific subjective choice.
Values in the context you mean them might be the specific axioms, maxims, rules by which one chooses actions that are “good” or “bad”, and that these rules, as we know from experience, are not entirely based on consequences. They can in fact preclude actions that may be more efficient, because one determines by his own “values” that the action has some inherent property that makes them not just “bad” but “Bad” in a broader sense.
I believe that the objective destination of action is the proper place to determine whether or not the outcome of that action constitutes a “good” outcome. And that values in the ethical sense are a convenient shorthand that aid in the selection of potential actions especially as the risks (uncertain theory or limited data) increase. The fact that ethical values tend to converge in specific ways is not an outcome of objective reality as origin, but of objective reality as destination. I don’t fault any of the logic that inhabits her Objectivist Ethics, I simply argue that this is objective of the second order not the first order (origin of the subjective nature of man) and thus since what a man’s ultimate ends are exists in the subjective realm, his choices are his own.
Here we are arguing past each other. The if/then propositions I was referring to, are the “normative ethical propositions” by which a man evaluates his personal ends, and in fact the means that he uses to pursue them. That when one rejects an action, because the action requires or IS a lie or deception, the form of the proposition considered is
“I cannot say X, because it is a lie” ← that statement devalues the action “say X” regardless of the result of “say X”, but the ethical proposition that is used, is one that goes, “I avoid lying, because .” And Y is either an ultimate judgment which cannot be unpacked, where man says, because that’s what I want, or Y is in fact another if then proposition.
Her final destination was “I want to remain alive.” That this was by her definition the objective ethic, the root source from which Good flowed. However, that statement still arises in the subjective realm of a man, it just so happens that individuals who DO NOT have that as the ultimate ethic (unpackable), tend to end up dead. The mistake she made, in my opinion, is the equivalent of thinking that cute is in the baby, and not in the mind of the parent. That funny is in the thing said and not in the mind of the joke teller and the joke hearer, that sweet is in the cake or pie, and not in the brain itself. Good and Bad are in the mind, not in the survival instinct of the man. The survival instinct is in the man. But that is only one of the factors by which a man may evaluate the actions he chooses to take.
No, I am saying that since life v death is the most fundamental alternative, that there is no intention or end one can choose that does not already imply the prior choice of one or the other. The choice to die does not reject value, it rejects life and thereby obviates value. One need not be conscious of making the choice. It is already implicit in a child’s responses to pleasure and pain.
No, it is not the action of choosing per se but rather which alternative is chosen that gives rise to the need for a normative system.
Intentionality has nothing to do with what normative ethics a man should have. That is established by man’s nature. Life in this context means maximization of the potential of that nature. And each action one opts for will either contribute to (the good) or detract from (the bad) that.
That man is volitional and makes his own choices is not relevant to whether or not those choices are objective or subjective, nor is it relevant to whether or not Rand’s or anyone else’s identifications of the process are accurate. We all make our own choices and for the consequences to contribute to life, they all have to meet the same standards established by the nature of reality.
No, it was “I want to live” in the fullest sense of the word, a multitude of layers away from merely sustaining physical existence.
What one thinks at any given time that Good and Bad are is in one’s mind, where one identifies and evaluates reality. What Good and Bad really are is established by the nature of what reality is. What the former ought to be is consistent with the latter. And since man is volitional, there are no instincts, survival or otherwise, to provide that consistency for him. He must discover it and act accordingly.
Luckily someone already did the work for you and distilled it all in an excellent magnum opus: Human Action. Strap on and enjoy the intellectual ride of your life.