After reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shurgged, I was disgusted by Ayn Rand's philosophy. Imagine my surprise, then, when Web surfing revealed Rand's admiration of my favorite author--Victor Hugo. She mentions his works frequently in her Romantic Manifesto, even devoting a chapter to her introduction of Ninety-Three. Her comments reveal that she had read even some of his most obscure works. Admittedly, the two share a couple superficial elements of Romantic prose. Both paint exaggerated characters, headstrong and independent. Both often write about people with near-absurd commitments to their values. However, the substance of their prose--their social aims--are profoundly different. I don't think Hugo would approve of Objectivism. Nor does Rand approve of the liberal goals Hugo professed.
Hugo writes, in his introduction to Cromwell (often called his "Romantic Manifesto") that "Romanticism is liberalism in literature". Hugo means liberalism as we know it: advancement of the awareness of and help for poverty, equalization of opportunity, and socioeconomic progress of every sort--hardly Rand's ideal. Independent of political aims, their ethical philosophies could not have been more distinct. The intensity of Hugo's heroes' commitment to duty and self-sacrafice is only equalled by that of Rand's characters' rejection of the same ideals! In Les Miserables, Hugo writes, "It is a terrible thing to be happy! How content one is! How all-sufficient one finds it! How, being in possession of the false object of life, happiness, one forgets the true object, duty." Compare this to the following excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, "You have sacraficed happiness to duty... Happiness is the proof of your moral integrity". Rand's further objection to duty as a moral standard is evidenced by her statement, "Immanual Kant is the real villain of our age".
(Here it must be admitted that the example of Sister Simplice in Les Miserables proves that Hugo's ideal of duty was not the same as Kant's. However, while Hugo's system of ethics was a religious one based on prima facie duties rather than Kant's stricter deontology, it was certainly much more closely realted to Kantian ethics than to Objectivism.)
In the end, one of Hugo's simplest advantages over Rand is that his heroes don't agree. Rand's protagonists all espouse the same philosophy, with only minor variations in how they act on it. Hugo's characters clash because of essentially different values, all painted as respectable and even heroic. Cimourdain, Lantenac, and Gauvain (Ninety-Three) are all committed to duty, but they have completely different ideals of what this is. It is the committment, not the cause, that is praised. John Galt and Dagny Taggart, on the other hand, have the exact same views (even if their conversations sometimes suspiciously echo Gauvain's and Cimourdain's final talk). Sure, they begin with different ideas of how to create the world they want. But in the end, they're on the same side. Hugo's characters differences are so fundamentally distinct that the only resolution is generally tragedy.
So: tragedy, liberalism, self-sacrafice, and deontology versus triumph, Objectivism, and selfishness. Hugo wins in my mind. I of course believe that everyone should love Hugo, but the fact that Rand does puzzles me in light of the differences I've just explored.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do some researches on "Inference to the Best Explaination" theory. It will surely solve your puzzles both philosopically and metaphilosopically.
ReplyDeleteI will explain it to you if needed.
My logical standards are a little high to accept abductive reasoning.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for my underestimation.
ReplyDeleteYet, if speaking of fact, there is no high or low standards in the field of science but only advantageous conveniences and adoptive conventions. This is simply due to the nature and imperfection of the humanity. I think this is what we are compelled to consent.
Also, I suppose that, regarding to your abundant resourcefulness (if you have read the Flatland), you would be more disceet with the word "High" since we human lack the ability to observe the absolute truth from another dimension.
Then please do rephase your arugement and the way you wish to be discussing, for I see only desperate idealism but modicum of liberalism in the statements of yours.
Surely, the USA is a free country after all. My aim is not to be judgemental on your preferable way of interpreting on either Hugo or Rand but the enhencement of my own ability to observe truths through discussion.
I suppose I'm not quite understanding what exactly you're arguing. Romanticism presupposes "desperate idealism"--and both Hugo's and Rand's forms of Romanticism include this element. The juxtaposition was simply between Hugo's liberal views and Rand's conservative ones. I was expressing my surprise that Rand appreciated Hugo so much, given her general intolerance of views contradictory to her own and explaining why I preferred Hugo's writing to Rand's.
ReplyDelete(I also didn't mean "high" as in insult to your suggestion--I simply dislike proofs that aren't rigorously deductive. This is from a philosophical standpoint, of course--as you point out, in practical life, we must be more abductive in our thinking.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would appreciate it if you can take my previous statements as a request but not arguments, as it is.
ReplyDeleteSince I have known your preferable way of discussing, please allow me to state my argument.
The reason why I bring up the idea of abduction is to indicate that:
1. The belief in objectivism will only provide practical answers to some impossible request for humanity found in Hugo's work.
Analogically, abduction reasoning could prove the existence of god and demon since the unknowns are still great to the humanity (it is a single fact). The reason why people conveniently ascribe falsely perceived properties to god or demon is not because they truly sense god or demon, but is because there are necessities (as mentioned, the unknowns) for god and demon to exist. Then these ideas will eventually become entities that even Occam's razor could not shear. Not to mention, this is how we can prove (or provide the basis for, if you like to call it, or even invent) the existence of gravity, atom, magnetic field. It is all just convenient and aims to explain the impossible, for we lack the ability to perceive the absolute truth.
As in this case, I redeem Rand's work as revelation to modern people of what could be the cornerstone and spiritual pillar of achieving the impossible--objectivism. Rand possibly disliked her own philosophy as well as we could find her love towards humanity is too deep so that the paradox could be found within her (as you point out that: Fighting against Hugo romanticism? No, it is equivalent to give up the love towards the entire humanity. "She rather gives general intolerance of views contradictory to her own"). However, unfortunately, she just understands human nature too well. Her works MUST be done in that way.
2. You do puzzle me too, as Rand has puzzled you.
On one side, you are an atheist who wishes the humanity to establish its own system. However, when Rand provided a possibility of establishing humanity's own system--objectivism, you dislike it as a true romanticist believer would do. I found this very respectful. I have to admit that it will be painful to possess a heart of true romanticism, but this pain will refine and gain you potentials of turning into the greatest artist ever.
On the other side, it is rare for idealists to be so staunch and rational in their beliefs.
P.S: I certainly agree with you that our standpoints might be at odds to some degree. And I admit that indubitably deductive reasoning is a ubiquitously adopted one and orthodox to modern science but still not a flawless one (flaw such as re-adjustability you displayed. Of course, there exist defects within all scientific methods. Hence, I do regard them as powerful tools which are invented by the giants who we ought to pay our reverence to.
Also, as a matter of fact, I prefer not to and did not take statements to a personal level through my life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I find your reasoning in (1) a bit difficult to follow. You make some claims about abduction's ability to "prove" (insofar as we can call abduction a method of proof) several things, but I'm not sure how it would do so. Also, out of curiosity, is English your native language? Some of your sentence structures seem rather foreign at times, but maybe the ideas are just too big for the words.
ReplyDeleteIn (2), you have found the heart of one of my major philosophical dilemmas (second, perhaps, only to my attempt to resolve existentialism and strict materialism). I would clarify that systems should not be created by humanity, but by each member of humanity--thus Rand's system should be rejected by all Romantics and/or existentialists. Labelling myself as either makes that last sentence somewhat hypocritical, but I'm sure you'll politely ignore that. Perhaps this irreconciliable blend of multiple systems is my own--a system that defies even my oft-cherised deductive logic (which, as you point out, is itself a flawed system that ought not be blindly accepted).
Also out of curiosity, are you someone I know in face-to-face life?
I sincerely hope you can understand that I am only a humble and shoddy apprentice of the philosophers (or if you like it, the ideas of the philosophers) whose knowledge is shallow and limited. I strive to shun errors, misinterpretations and non-facts in my statements, but am naturally unable to escape from these inevitabilities. You have my deepest thanks to indicate, correct and argue what I have stated wrong.
ReplyDelete(1) And if my previous ideas are fairly understood and appreciated, I'd like you to presume that "I" knows, understands nothing in scientific truth and indeed is foreign to English to be eligibly persuasive in this case. However, I believe that the giants have the answers to some of your questions.
1. I understand that abduction might be unfamiliar to you. However, I can provide my interpretation of it (factually, understandings differ from people): The function of abduction is to prove, as we mentioned, but the final and only goal of it is to provide the “best” (simple, useful, coherent) conclusions or explanations for humanity’s epistemological perception (to master and harness the secrets of the nature and ourselves).
We first need to admit that there exist various natural and unnatural phenomenon; social, moral and ethnic dilemmas. As we reach the consensus that humanity simply does not possess the ability of perceiving the absolute truth, we could understand that even the basis and origins of the modern science could not be unshakably either supported or proved. But why does humanity still have faith in science? Because humanity is not in need of genuinely the finest established system even though some do strive to achieve that (refer to the psychological theory “the optimal or the satifice”), but rather to find, shall we say, the sub-truth (to master and harness the secrets of the nature and ourselves). And this kind of truth is infinitely inferior to the absolute truth. The nature of humanity of pursuing the sub-truth is easily traceable: developmentally, from astrology to idolatry, from superstition to religion. And now, we call it, science.
Therefore, I consider science itself as a byproduct of the abduction. The abduction of science does not consist of hypothesis but only has single and common perceivable facts which we may or may not able to explain them individually. Then when these perceivable facts are coincidentally organized and refined into rules and principles, we give it a name and accept it as valuable and attempt to render them controllable. In the process, the conclusion drawn for abduction just gains more and more accuracy by introducing the methodology of induction and deduction. That is, the abduction provides the answers: what, why and true or false; deduction and induction validate or invalidate the statements drawn from the abduction (which gives you the direction of how to manipulate). In this manner, the questions of “what” and “how” to explain one and common perceivable fact are answered both scientifically and philosophically.
In other cases, like in practical life, abduction is known as “Inference to the best explanation”. It could be found mostly in mystery novels and crime scene investigation. (Gather all possible factors and evidences of the killer, and find and indicate the suspect that fits them all).
ReplyDeleteAnalogically (please understand that I have personal preference in rationalism and Cartesian doubt instead of the empiricism), like in religious view, we attribute the advents of unexplainable miracles or catastrophes to god or demon (which sometimes are later proved scientifically explainable, but in some cases we cannot). In this token, it is us who conveniently and temporarily “create” the existence of god or demon since we could not find the possible suspect or entity to achieve these unexplainable miracles or catastrophes at certain stage. And then we are compelled to admit the existence of god or demon. Thus the factors and evidences that could not be properly explained or attribute to a perceivable entity are all proofs of god or demon or whatever entity you would like to call it. However, abduction is flawed to carry the function of proving by simply perceiving the “sensible facts” and is not free of falsely perceived properties.
2. And this is as far as “I” can go to show you the “proof”. The giants will truly explain how gravity and atom are proved. Check these ideas in order: Galileo's "Assayer", "Inference to the best explanation", Newton's idea of "Hypotheses non fingo" or the whole "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", Albert Einstein's "General relativity" and "Occam's Razor".
(2). some comments on your second statement:
1. It is extremely difficult for people to completely and strictly prescribe to one philosophical idea. So there is no need of worrying about the “labels”. Yet, it should be encouraged to be liberalism so that, at least, our statements will be free of any untrue sophistry and prejudice. (However, in your case, I would really like to recommend you to prescribe to the non-comprisable romanticism you believe in).
2. It could be referring back to Socrates’ soul perfection argument and it is always quintessential to gain the very fundamental understanding of the edifice of the humanity.
3. I too, attempt to found my own system.
P.S.: It seems you could be a very talented detective with your sharp sensations. I’d like to ask you: will that essentially make a negative or positive difference with respect to our discussion? I quite enjoy in both reading and discussing your articles. However, in both cases, I guess you will need to use abduction to find out if it is your heart desire.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that we're using abduction as a practical way to approach science and other problems of predictability, I respect it as a valid approach. However, I fail to see how it "proves" the existence of a god or a demon. Certainly, there are things we find fairly inexplicable. But why is a supernatural power the best explanation? Is it not equally plausible to say it's a natural phenomenon we don't understand yet? I realize you have referred me to other works for this: I will attempt to peruse those I haven't already read, but suspect I will remain unconvinced.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe whether I know you in person will make a difference to these online discussions. However, if I do indeed know you in person, I think it would be interesting to continue these conversations face to face.
In which way do you prefer to "prove"? There are two ways in the scope of my knowledge--dualism and determinism. I am personally more familiar with dualism (but can only deal the proof with its premises). The methodology of determinism seems trickier to me and the argument is not really well established.
ReplyDeleteP.S.:I am sure it would be and will happen at certain point in the forthcoming future. Would you like to play a simple game of abduction?
Please, don't make me take on determinism. I will simply say that there are many more options: non-determinism (as caused by chance), compatibilism (I won't even attempt to explain this--look it up), and, I'm sure, more I don't know or have forgotten.
ReplyDeleteBy "prove" in this sense, I mean something completely subjective: an argument that convinces me. That's a vague standard and I apologize, but I'm not sure how to define it further. A deductive proof would suffice, but is not required. Perhaps sufficient empirical evidence would serve.
I'm not certain of my ability to live up to this test of my abductive powers, but I'll try. What do I know? Your native language is not English. We likely have met or live near each other (or else, why would you express such certainty that we will discuss these things in person in the future). You are a theist, in some sense of the word, though apparently not in the most traditional, blindly-accepting-one-religion sense. I don't know much more other than what you've written in your responses to me and your own blog posts. Time to do a bit more research . . .
The reason why I bring up the ideas of dualism and determinism is to build an edifice for the further argument which otherwise will pull out a whole lot more works of the philosophers (and of course, more religious studies which really are not my expertise). And the distinctions between these two ideas are conveniently obvious—whether the souls exist or not. After understanding the “prove” process in two distinctively different approaches with their premises, I am sure that you will gain the ability to “prove” any other diversities and derivatives (like other ideas you have mentioned). Therefore, notably, my goal here is not to convince you of my own philosophical system but rather to humbly demonstrate you (as most of the brilliant college professors and philosophers would say) the very basic methodology of philosophy and arouse your desire to gain the thinking power beyond the inertial perception of our sensible dimensionalities (in this case, my ability to achieve this is infinitely inferior with the comparison to the giants nor am I in the position to do so). If my previous statements are properly understood, please allow me to state my arguments.
ReplyDelete1. Find the unchanged from the changes
Let’s solve the problem of the “prove” first. For the convenience of the humanity’s epistemological perception, we commonly attempt to understand an entity (including objectivity and subjectivity) by asking “what”, “why” and “how”. As we have discussed, abduction is able to provide answers to the “what” and the “why”; induction and deduction is able to describe and refine the “how”. All three facets should be subject to one goal—to harness and take advantage of sub-truth of that entity (otherwise, why would we waste our time on the tangling of our own flawed logic).
So, let’s ask one question “what is god?” if we desire to prove the idea or existence of “god”.
In my perception, “god” is an idea which is infinitely related to the humanity—the perfection and the imperfection (let’s suppose that Descartes’ statement of “humanity is between the perfection and nothingness” is somewhat reasonable, or temporally consider it as a hypothesis which will later appear as non-hypothesis). Then to gain the understanding of the humanity is truly required to gain the understanding of the “god”.
Then let’s ask “what is humanity?”
From here, we can take two branches of the road to complete our journey of “proving”—the dualism and the determinism since the existence of the soul do not genuinely affiliate and inflict interference on the existence of the god.
Dualism claims that philosophically, one single human consists of two quintessential factors which carry different functions—the body and the soul (I simply do not wish to argue the immortality of the soul right now, but it will come out naturally). And the body’s function is to receive the sensory perception while the soul is purported to comprehend the platonic forms or ideas where sensory perception are too flawed and often fooled by various manifestations of the platonic forms. Yet, the soul is able to grasp these forms with great precision.
Then what are the platonic forms?
Plato indicates that the platonic forms are the sheerest but abstract entities. We can take beauty as an instance for the platonic form. It is common for us to perceive various beautiful things with the accordance of the beauty but we do not really perceive the beauty itself in the objective world. Also, we do not perceive the justice in the objective world but we can regard or value various deeds of the humanity as just and unjust. It is the same with any other Platonic forms. That is, eventually, the manifestations of the platonic forms always transform and changes covertly in the objective world while the platonic ideas remain eternal and unchanged (you can find the wax analogy in Desecrates’ work which is more specific). If something could really remain eternal and unchanged with respect to the space and time (in our dimensionality), then we will be compelled to admit that it must be the absolute truth.
However, it is not any old absolute truth but the absolute truth that is possessed by every member of the humanity despite of any interference begotten from humanity’s subjectivity (including emotion, culture, personal value and etc.) even though those absolute truths could be falsely perceived by humanity (since we naturally are flawed to do so).
ReplyDeleteWe are able to further refine and conclude these Platonic forms (such as the word “good”, in terms of perceiving the beauty, justice, wisdom and etc.). By doing so, we will likely to find an entity which is an ultimate conglomerate of all these forms—the absolute perfection which humanity could in no means to approach and achieve.
A question could be asked: could this absolute perfection be perceived or understood with the sub-truth we have found in nature? I found the answer to be “no”. This means that science (the method we developed to understand and harness the secrets of the nature) is very unproductive and inferior to grasp the absolute perfection since as mentioned, the perfection is not within the great nature.
Let’s do a quick review on all the factors shown above:
I. The entity is likely to remain unchanged and eternal in our dimensionality (so it is possible for it to exist in another dimensionality).
ii. The entity is somewhat perceived by every member of the humanity and part of its quality is possessed by the humanity (so it is possible for it to be the “creator” of the humanity)
iii. The entity is not scientifically understandable and perceivable (so it is possible for it to be a supernatural force or a source which we lack the ability to explain).
Therefore, we conclude this entity as “god”. (You can use the same methodology to prove demon as well, if you wish to do so and believe me, it’s convenient) In this manner, we solve the problem of “what” and “why” by abduction.
2. Be not constrained (or fooled) by the objectivity
ReplyDeleteWhat is left now is the “how”. Since you have understood the very nature of three scientific methods that have been introduced, you must understand that deduction is sufficed to carry on the “prove”. And more importantly, you must have noticed that the “hows” have been mostly discussed and argued by a lot of brilliant philosophers since those philosophers have personal preferences in deduction as much as you do. So surely, you will be able to find the “hows” in most of their works. But here, I am going to state one of them as an example.
First, let’s ask one question: have we ever truly found the Arabic number “1” or any other number in real life? The answer is likely a “no”. The concept of numbers are invented by and for people who have faith in the concept of number to have better understanding of the world (in this way, everything can be numerically controllable). You will find the resemblance of the ideas to be conveniently true in religion but the numbers are replaced by different symbols (if you have read the “Assayer” you will surely grasp what I am talking about).
Then, another question can be brought up: could you really destroy (or discard) a number if you someday find it unpalatable to your personal preference of perception or aesthetic view? The answer could be very ambiguous. In an objective world, you can write down a “2” on a piece of paper and tear it up. Do you believe the number “2” is destroyed? At least, I believe it is not the case. In this sense, we have shown that a concept or idea can exist without a proper shell or container (or whatever you like to call it) in the objective world. Then it is reasonable for “I” to believe that the entity we just found by abduction has its existence even without a perceivable body or shape.
Then in this token, we basically “create” a possibility for “god” to exist. And you might want to ask: How can we make use of it? In religious view, the entity could be entrusted continuously or individually onto an object or a person—for example, the pope, Jesus Christ and the cross (since even though their bodies could vanish in terms of time, the concept will remain imperishable). However, the concept or the form (not the entity) has been corrupted within the humanly selected body. Therefore, I’d rather believe the existence of the idea of god but not “god” itself. Eventually, we have founded the “best” but temporal explanation to the existence of god.
P.S.:1. In the method of deduction, even the “body” (not necessarily the Pope or Jesus Christ but a distinct one) of the god could be conveniently proved as well if you like to see it (but it lacks of the facts to be really convincing). If you wish to see the “prove” process under the determinism, please by all means request and I will display it to you (it is a whole different story).
ReplyDelete2. Please do feel no tension for the game. It is not purported to be in any sense eerie but as a reward for you to be in possession of the Socratic attitude. Before we start the game, you may ask me three questions which in essence will dismiss all my advantages over you in this game. And in exchange, please allow me to set several unimportant rules and request one question afterwards for I am in an even more disadvantaged position than you are (because now you have gained both the methods and the thinking patterns of mine, those are the definitely unchangeable).
Rules for the questioners and respondents:
1. The questions can be literally any question.
2. The responses to the questions must be subject to the fact, but not necessarily the exact fact.
3. The question must not consist of the “first, second, and third person reference” (like I, my, you, your, he, his, she, her).
The following questions are invalid such as: Do I know you? What is your name? Is he your friend?
4. The responses must be independent of any external sources (such as computer, Internet, calculator, or any other tools).
I am thoroughly convinced that if dualism is accurate, there must be some "ultimate form of the good" (most people decide to call this "God"). However, working from a dualistic premise is hardly going to convince me. I'd love to see your argument from determinism, though I must warn you I still may not be convinced, since I don't see dualism and determinism as a complete and mutually exclusive array of options.
ReplyDeleteI like your rules (though the third rule is tough). This is fun. You may have one question, though it must adhere to your rules and if it's too personal to post on a blog, you'll have to give me some other means by which to send you the answer. Sound fair?
I'm also going to make a corollary rule: if it's a straightforward factual question, you must clearly state whether you know the answer or not (independent of outside sources). In actually providing the answer, trickiness is OK. Are we agreed?
1. Please do carry on the “leap of the faith”, for the blind faith in science is in no way different from pedantic faith in religious doctrines and vice versa. Doubt whatever you find unconvinced, this is the only way for humanity to achieve the unreachable perfection: “God’s in his Heaven / All’s right with the world”.
ReplyDeleteIf we like, we can set up our own premises as well (it's just going to take a bit longer and my intelligence alone is not sufficient to do so since too many premises have been established by the giants).
2. Indeed, as it is the rules for the “questioners and respondents”. If the rules apply to you, it will cast the same effects on me. It is a pleasure to hear you concern, I guess an addition of the rules (5. The question must not be purported or formed in any way to acquire participants’ personal information) can eliminate the possibility you mentioned. Even though the adding of this rule is not going to be an obstacle to my question, but I guess it will somehow be disadvantageous for you.
3. It seems that you have fully understood the nature of the rules. We will have an agreement if you show your inclination on the amendment of the rules.
Sounds good.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: In what city is Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering located?
Question 1: In what city is Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering located?
ReplyDeleteI do not know.
Question 2: In what city is Oregon's Riverdale High School located?
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: In what city is Oregon's Riverdale High School located?
ReplyDeletePortland.
Interesting. Only someone from Oregon, and probably from Portland, would know that unless we were friends at college--which isn't possible because you didn't know the location of my college. I'll have to think long and hard before using my final question.
ReplyDeleteJust remember that, the goal of these questions is to help you to "find the sun behind the mountains".
ReplyDeleteHere is my question.
Question: What's it like to live in Schrödinger's catbox during the night of the yesterdays?
Let me do this response as though I were there--it will make it easier.
ReplyDeleteThe night of the yesterdays is clearly all nights past (all time past, actually, because it's always night inside a catbox). Presumably, if I am in Schroedinger's catbox, it only remains Schroedinger's catbox because it is unopened or unobserved. Therefore, my first instinct is that it's rather lonely--I've been in there since the beginning of time (since the first yesterday, we might say). However, you have just told me I am "living" in it, not just being in it. So I know I am alive. This gives me an incredible sense of superiority. My state--and even the knowable-ness of my state--is unknown to all but me. I possess the world's one true secret.