Monday, February 10, 2014

Future of Objectivism 7

John McCaskey, the candid Objectivist. Whereas many Objectivists, especially from the older generation, come off as a bit insular and even paranoid, McCaskey seems more open and engaging. He teaches part time at Stanford, and is well-liked by his students. He writes a blog, where he invites comments and even (sometimes) responds in a civil manner. There can be little doubt that evangelizing for the Objectivist cause means a big deal to McCaskey. He's a true believer in the Randian cause. But the way he goes about evangelizing his ideological preferences seems far more reasonable and inoffensive than what we've been accustomed to at the hands of Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger, and even Rand herself. Unlike those Objectivist luminaries, McCaskey is not offended when people disagree with him; nor does he automatically equate criticism with a personal attack. He seems to understand, what so many older orthodox Objectivists fail to grasp, that you don't win converts by displaying contempt for the people you disagree with.

McCaskey made a good deal money in the computer business. He then went back to school to get a Ph.D. in history. Presumably, he should have been perfect ARI board member. He had money, he had the credentials, he shared an obvious passion for Rand and her ideas, and he wanted to teach. What more could be wanted by the folks over at the institute? Well, there was a fly in the ointment; a tragic flaw, if you will, that would lead to McCaskey's fall from grace over at ARI. And I suspect it goes well beyond merely disagreeing with Harriman and Peikoff over a few points of historical scholarship. When Peikoff described McCaskey as "an obnoxious braggart" and "pretentious ignoramus," Ayn Rand's heir clearly exaggerated. But if you read McCaskey's blog, you  may detect an element of truth behind Peikoff's exaggerations. Peikoff likely had reasons beyond McCaskey's criticisms of Harriman for his histrionic denunciations of the former ARI board member. Indeed, I would not be surprised if the McCaskey's Harriman criticisms were merely the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. While calling McCaskey an obnoxious braggart and pretentious ignoramus is clearly over the top, McCaskey does exhibit just that sort of breezy self-confidence as an expositor of Randian ideology that could easily exasperate the over-protective, thin-skinned Peikoff. In his infamous "ultimatum" letter, Peikoff described McCaskey's criticism as saying, "in essence, Peikoff is misguided , Harriman is misguided, [McCaskey] knows Objectivism better than either." At the time, Peikoff's criticism struck many ARI critics as unjustifiable hyperbole stemming from an over-sensitivity to criticism. But if, as I suspect, McCaskey had, during his tenure on the ARI board, been riffing on Objectivism like he riffs on his blog, I can see how that would get on Peikoff's nerves. Riffing has always been a problem for orthodox Objectivism. Objectivism mostly appeals to high school and college students. While some of these students are content to follow an orthodox path, the more bolder nascent Objectivists often irrepressible desire to "improve" Objectivism in some way or another. It is likely that Peikoff, over the years, has received scores of emails from pretentious, sometimes even belligerent and nasty college students offering "improved" versions of the Randian creed. This sort of thing was never welcomed by Rand, and it certainly would not have been welcomed by Peikoff. McCaskey's riffs may seem, to those of us who are outsiders, as mild and inoffensive. They most deal with semantic issues (i.e, with how Objectivist arguments are worded) rather than posing any serious challenge to orthodoxy. But any sort of changes, even if merely to the phrasing of arguments, would constitute a challenge to Peikoff's authority as the most qualified interpreter of Objectivism. Over the years, Peikoff has guarded his position as the supreme authority on Randian doctrine with an intense, paranoid jealousy.

Consider, as one example of a McCaskey's riff, a blog post about "the initiation and use of physical force." Objectivism conflates physical force with fraud. While agreeing with this conflation, McCaskey suggests a reformulation which, he insists, is more in keeping with Ayn Rand's original text:

[Rand] was right to indicate that “physical force” here is the same thing physicists mean. And Peikoff’s dropping “use of” and Objectivists speaking of two kinds of physical force make, I think, Rand’s doctrine about individual rights harder to conceptualize; more difficult to apply to threat, theft, breach, extortion, and cases with conflicting indications of consent; and more susceptible to the claim that it should be expanded to cover trade when one party has superior economic power.

In this passage (and in much of the blog post), McCaskey is basically implying that he is a better, smarter, and more faithful interpreter of Rand than Peikoff. Perhaps McCaskey is right in this implication. I take no position one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that McCaskey is manifesting just the sort of attitude Peikoff complained about in his ultimatum email, an attitude which might very well have manifested itself on occasion prior to McCaskey's resignation from the ARI board of directors.

McCaskey's criticism of Harriman's scholarship, even if entirely justified from an intellectual point of view, obviously betrays a kind of social/political ineptitude. If he wanted to maintain his position at ARI, he should been more aware of how his criticisms, however mild they may have been, might prick Peikoff's tender sensibilities. Nonetheless, there is something refreshing in McCaskey's candor. In reading McCaskey you get the sense that, whether you agree with him or not (and I generally don't), he's not trying to pull one over on you. He is a candid Objectivist. Unlike Peikoff, for instance, McCaskey doesn't come off as particularly guarded or suspicious. He doesn't assume the worst about other people and only drops his guard when proven otherwise. He tells it like he sees it, and lets the chips fall where they may.

This feature of McCaskey's character is manifested in perhaps his most incendiary post of all, where he admits, with a candor rare to find among Objectivists, that "any logic professor," using "the highest established standards of logic" can "decimate Ayn Rand’s moral and political philosophy in one 45-minute lecture." McCaskey is quick to add: "But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing."

While it's unclear whether McCaskey's is speaking for the orthodox wing of Objectivism (as filtered through Peikoff), there does seem to be at least an undercurrent of this sort of thinking within ARI, even among the old guard. Binswanger once described "the Objectivist theory of logic" as "a super-set of ordinary, Aristolean logic." Since there has been no detailed treatise on "the Objectivist theory of logic," those of us who are innocent of the inner sanctums of current Objectivist thinking have no idea what it might be (if it is anything at all). Could it be that McCaskey has given us a glimpse into this obscure bit of Objectivist arcana? Or is this another one of his riffs on Peikoffian orthodoxy? In any case, one appreciates McCaskey's candor in stating what has become obvious to critics of Objectivism. It has long been known that the Objectivist theory of ethics cannot hold up to logical scrutiny. Neither Rand nor any of her followers have ever attempted to provide a rigorous logical argument for their moral theory. What we get, instead, is arguments based on loose rhetoric where the vagueness of terms is used equivocate to whatever conclusions are deemed proper and necessary. The glue that holds Rand's arguments together is not logic, but moral intimidation and ad hominem abuse.

McCaskey, while admitting that the Objectivist morality can't hold up under "the highest established standards of logic," does not, however, go so far as to admit that Rand just made everything up to suit predetermined conclusions. He argues that "Rand’s distinctive method to answering many philosophical questions is to ask what knowledge is already presumed by the very terms in the question." And: "The crucial element of Ayn Rand’s method amounts to avoiding what she calls the fallacy of the stolen concept. The fallacy is like a petitio principii, but applied to concepts instead of propositions."

Admittedly, this is all rather vague; nor do the examples McCaskey provides help much. However, given that the stolen concept fallacy is itself a fallacy (the fact that a given attack on premise X presumes premise X in no way establishes or proves that premise X is true), Rand's "distinctive method" merely seems yet another form of rationalistic speculation, framed to deceive those who wish to be deceived. It is not anything a serious logician, let alone any man of practical good sense, would countenance.

Yet from another point view, McCaskey's attempt to define a new sort of "super" logic necessary to safeguard Objectivism from "the highest established standards of logic" and science (not to mention worldly practical sense as well) strikes me as a probable future development of the Objectivist epistemology. While I seriously doubt that Ayn Rand would have ever acknowledged the logical failure of her Objectivist ethics, since her death criticism of Objectivism has only become more precise and devastating. The Objectivist ethics is probably the best refuted doctrine in the entire Randian creed. Over time, it's going to become increasingly difficult for Objectivists in academia to continue to maintain the logical, scientific, and objective pretensions of their moral theories in the face of increasingly knowledgeable and effective criticism.
 If the Objectivist ethics is so thoroughly based on "reason," than Objectivists should be able to provide an actual logical proof of their ethical positions. They have been unable to do so. The only way for them to get around this signal embarrassment is play the super-logic card. Objectivism, they will be forced to say, enjoys a "distinctive" method of establishing objective moral truths. Therefore, the old "highest standards of established logic" no longer apply.

What McCaskey has admitted to in a moment of candour might very well give us a glimpse into a future development of Objectivist doctrine. There really is no Objectivist "theory of logic" -- only a few vague phrases from Rand herself, which can be interpreted to mean many different things. Since Objectivism cannot rest on standard logic, it may have to formulate its own logic going forward. Whether that formulation is based on McCaskey's "stolen concept" speculations, or Binswanger's "hierarchy of concepts," or some other, yet to be broached, confabulation is of no matter. Whether it's based on stolen concepts, conceptual hierarchies, or even the flying spaghetti monster, it's all the same: it's an abandonment of rational standards and a confession that Objectivism is no more rational than any other ideology.

19 comments:

Daniel Barnes said...

Greg:
>McCaskey is quick to add: "But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing."

Shorter McCaskey: Ayn Rand argues illogically.

Echo Chamber Escapee said...

Greg, quoting McCaskey: "But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing."

Made me think of the following:

"They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason .... The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means."

This, of course, is from Galt's speech.

Perhaps Rand is a "mystic of logic," who possesses a "distinctive method of arguing," one that is capable of leaping right over the is/ought gap that "conventional standards of logic" prove is unbridgeable.

gregnyquist said...

Perhaps Rand is a "mystic of logic," who possesses a "distinctive method of arguing," one that is capable of leaping right over the is/ought gap that "conventional standards of logic" prove is unbridgeable.

The odd thing about this is that I doubt Rand would have been comfortable with any claim to super-logic. I suspect Rand's problem is that she had a superficial grasp of logic. She had always been an argumentative person, particularly with people who were her intellectual inferiors. Her MO seems to have been to catch her antagonist in some sort of contradiction, which makes two rather dubious presumptions: (1) that if your antagonist, in attempting to defend position x, contradicts himself, that establishes that position x is wrong (rather than merely that the argument made against x is bad, which is another possibility); and (2) the contradiction not only proves position x wrong, but proves non-x right(!) I suspect something along these lines developed in Rand's thinking, because that's really what Rand's own logic amounts to: seeking for contradictions in arguments for positions she didn't like, and blithely assuming such contradictions validate her own positions. In any case, there's little doubt that Rand developed what is essentially a coherentist account of knowledge that is deeply rationalistic and, at times, hostile to fact checking and worldly experience (which her disciples dismiss as "concrete bound"). Rand's mania for the "A is A" mantra (which she picked up from Isabel Paterson) and the whole stolen-concept-fallacy fraud are both in this rationalist tradition which falsely assumes that knowledge claims can be judged on the basis of logical inconsistencies in arguments that attack them.

It should be obvious that Rand's rather superficial version of coherentism is not consistent with conventional standards of logic; and therefore any attempt to put a respectable gloss on Rand for academic consumption is may need to resort to some form or another of the super-logic meme.

Daniel Barnes said...

Greg:
>...Rand's own logic amounts to: seeking for contradictions in arguments for positions she didn't like, and blithely assuming such contradictions validate her own positions.

Yes I agree it's something like that. Rand seems to forget, if she ever knew, that as well as contradictions there are contraries, statements that contradict each other but may both be false. Recall her regular admonition: "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." This seems to suggest precisely what you are saying - her superficial grasp of formal logic has lead her to into error.

>...any attempt to put a respectable gloss on Rand for academic consumption is may need to resort to some form or another of the super-logic meme.

Academic consumption would be a priority I suppose because of the Objectivist theory of history; that intellectuals, primarily philosophers, produce the ideas that shape society. This has lead to the (foolish) Objectivist political strategy of first installing themselves in academia in order to convert the world to Randism. Of course before they can dominate decisively even in this relatively small sphere they will have to square the circle of her illogical arguments....it's Mission Impossible. Half a century after Atlas Shrugged the movement has no more than a toenail hold in this domain. So the target date for Global Conversion to Objectivism moves ever further into the future -100, even 1000 years...

Daniel Barnes said...

Greg:
>The odd thing about this is that I doubt Rand would have been comfortable with any claim to super-logic.

This strikes me as a bolt-on too. In fact Rand seems to be totally committed to straight up Aristotelian bi-valent logic, whilst not understanding that it doesn't, - and simply can't - justify things like her ethics and epistemology.

Echo Chamber Escapee said...

@Daniel: Rand seems to be totally committed to straight up Aristotelian bi-valent logic, whilst not understanding that it doesn't, - and simply can't - justify things like her ethics and epistemology.

Yes, she was committed to Aristotelian logic. So much so that her primary mode of argument is the false dichotomy.

But at the same time, I think she believed that she had added something crucial to Aristotle's logic -- specifically, her notions of "valid" concepts and "valid" definitions are an attempt to expand the scope of validity to encompass the premises of a syllogism, not just the inference. In doing so, she believed she had "completed" Aristotle's logic, closing a hole that had left it vulnerable to all sorts of "irrationality" (like, say, the is/ought gap). And that's why she thinks logic -- meaning Aristotelian bi-valent logic plus her theory of concepts -- can prove all the things she sets out to prove.

Daniel Barnes said...

@ECE, Rand attempting to expand "the scope of validity to encompass the premises of a syllogism" is simply another way of saying she didn't understand the difference between validity and soundness. This explains why so many of her followers don't either.

Echo Chamber Escapee said...

@Daniel: Quite true. What she thought she accomplished and what she actually accomplished were not the same thing at all. I spent a lot of years confused over the difference between sound and valid myself -- all because of Rand.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Echo


"all because of Rand."

Very pathetic.

Dan Edge said...

Nyquist, I continue to be impressed by your essays. Thanks again for the enlightening analyses. --Dan Edge

Neil Parille said...

I guess I wonder what Peikoff thinks Objectivist academics are supposed to do to get tenure.

Giving lecture courses on how great this or that Objectivist idea is won't to it in the world of academia, right or wrong.

Francois Tremblay said...

Do we get to vote for our favourite candidate at the end? Like an Objectivist Idol show?

darren said...

>I suspect Rand's problem is that she had a superficial grasp of logic.

Bingo.

And the same can be said for her acolytes, who delude themselves into believing they know something about logic after reading "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" or hearing some old recorded lectures by Leonard Peikoff.

darren said...

By the way, McCaskey's scholarship is nothing to write home about either. On his own blog, he tries to support Objectivist notions of a distinctly "Inductive" logic by mentioning the work of a late 18th, early 19th century author I know well: Richard Whately. Whately wrote an excellent treatise on logic titled "Elements of Logic" (which takes a somewhat Abelardian/nominalist approach to universals) and which also deals with the topic of induction but from a somewhat unexpected angle: he claims that induction is not a form of syllogistic reasoning at all — it's not a veiled form of deduction — but a mode of argumentation and persuasion; i.e., induction properly belongs to the study of rhetoric (which categorizes different kinds of arguments), not the study of formal logic; and, in fact, Whately urges the reader to cross-check his statements on induction with his companion treatise, "The Elements of Rhetoric", which also treats of induction as a variation on the "Argument from Analogy."

Whately's "Elements of Logic" and "Elements of Rhetoric" were meant to be studied together, read synoptically, as it were. Yet I've seen no mention of this at all in McCaskey's blog posts on this subject.

Anonymous said...

"Objectivism mostly appeals to high school and college students."

Is this comment worthy of serious consideration? It follows a tradition of screeds using words like "cult", "Randian", "worship", etc. that have little in common with objectivism. This is more an exercise in psychologizing.

Not sure how the author knows for a fact that objectivism has young people as its primary adherents, many Rand "fans" I know discovered her works in their middle age (including myself).

Presumably the young are idealistic and naive so this remark has a negative connotation. I think the reason why Rand appeals to a younger person is simply because of her celebration of life and its potential. Contrast this with the dour brothers keeper mindset that proclaims your life isn't your own to direct, that you must sacrifice for the "good" of others. Collectivism is a bill of goods.



Jzero said...

" I think the reason why Rand appeals to a younger person is simply because of her celebration of life and its potential."

As well as narcissism, greed, and the sense of superiority over others. Rand appeals to youngsters in the same way that Harry Potter does, with power fantasies and wish fulfillment.

"Do you ever feel that everybody else in the world are clueless morons out to make your life difficult with all their rules? Do you ever think that if they just knew what you know, all the world's problems would vanish overnight? Do you wish you could be recognized for this vast gift of insight which you are certain you possess? Why, then, perhaps you are an Objectivist! Privy to powerful knowledge that is blindingly obvious but also mostly ignored by the world at large, Objectivism reveals that, in fact, you are not out of step with the rest of the world - the rest of the world is out of step with YOU.

You ARE the genius you think you are!"

darren said...

>Anonymous wrote: "Collectivism is a bill of goods."

So is Objectivism.

They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.

gregnyquist said...

Is this comment worthy of serious consideration? It follows a tradition of screeds using words like "cult", "Randian", "worship", etc. that have little in common with objectivism. This is more an exercise in psychologizing.

Why is it psychologizing? It's either a fact, or it isn't.

For better or worse, we have no statistical research to rely on to settle such issues. We have to make educated guesses based on whatever information is at hand. If you examine Rand's original set of disciples, what do you find? They were mostly pretty young when they got drawn into Rand's Objectivist nexus. Alan Greenspan was just about the oldest member of the group, and he was in his mid to late twenties.

I've been acquainted or have had knowledge of maybe 40 or so objectivists. Of those 40, only 1 became acquainted with Rand in middle age. Moreover, there's a fairly high drop out rate among these young people who become Objectivists. Again, we have no statistical analysis to rely on, but I've run across quite a few "former" Objectivists who, at a certain point, decided it didn't work for them any more. Some of these people retain a fondness for Rand, even while they shed strict adherence to Objectivist orthodoxy; others prefer to distance themselves from Rand and much of what they stood for altogether. In either case, they cease to remain true believing orthodox Objectivists. Therefore, as a conjecture, the assertion that Objectivism mostly appeals to high school and college age youths is a highly plausible one; even if it isn't exactly the truth, it comes close to the truth.

Not sure how the author knows for a fact that objectivism has young people as its primary adherents, many Rand "fans" I know discovered her works in their middle age (including myself).

You need to distinguish between "fans" and Objectivists. There are more "fans" of Ayn Rand than there are Objectivists. Objectivists are people who follow all the essentials, and sometimes many of the non-essentials, of Rand's philosophical doctrines. A fan may be anyone who admires Rand, even if he doesn't in all major points agree with her. Oliver Stone is a fan of Ayn Rand, for instance. There are people who are members of groups Rand despised who are fans of Ayn Rand (e.g., conservatives and libertarians). I know of several Christian fans of Rand, who claim Rand is right about nearly everything except God. Some of these fans may well have become acquainted with Rand later in life. In any case, that would explain why they had other allegiences that prevented them from becoming full-blown Objectivists.

Mark Plus said...

Rand went out of her way to get her novels and other writings into circulation; and the Ayn Rand Institute continued that marketing strategy after her death through the direct targeting of teenagers (the essay contests for high school students, for example).

Once you do that, you lose control over what the sovereign consumers of Rand's books choose to do with her ideas. So why do today's Objectivists become upset when people have done what Rand wanted, namely, buy and read her works, yet these readers have found "aftermarket" uses for Rand's ideas that Rand wouldn't have approved of?

For example, I don't think the late John Williamson sought Rand's permission in the 1960's to set up a free love commune in Southern California after he found inspiration for the project from reading Atlas Shrugged. (Refer to Gay Talese's book about Williamson and similar bohemians, The Neighbor's Wife.) And from what I've read, Williamson never identified himself as an Objectivist. A fan of Rand's novel, apparently; but not a Kool-Aid drinker.

How many more people like Williamson exist out there, who used parts of Rand they found useful or inspirational, while ignoring the other parts?