Massimo Watch 10.31.10 Free Thinking About Ayn Rand

There are diametrically contradictory differences between thinking “freely” (i.e. Free Thought) and thinking in a disciplined fashion. Thinking freely has some utility in specific exercises of brain-storming and searching for the boundaries of a concept. But in order to claim rationality for a concept, there are known, specific disciplined processes that obtain. There is a discipline required that precludes the freedom of random notions or ideology-based rationalization.

In his recent venture in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Massimo Piggliucci makes the following comment:

”Rand begins her metaphysics by articulating three axioms: consciousness, existence, and identity. She writes in Atlas Shrugged that “An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.” Wrong. An axiom is an assumption from which the discussion begins. It can (and should) be examined and/or challenged if the deductive consequences of the axiom(s) entail logical contradictions or any other rationally unacceptable conclusions. This is the way it works in math, logic, and philosophy.”

Massimo blatantly confuses axioms with premises, and then refers to actual axioms in the same sentence (Law of Non-Contradiction). Rand is right, although she describes the consequences of the existence of axioms, not the characteristics of the axiom itself.

Axioms are universal truths, availed through eras of observation, which are known by inspection to be incorrigibly valid, but are not provable by higher order logic or experimental validation, both of which are dependent upon the axioms for their own validity. This is what Rand was talking about: logic and science must presuppose the axioms of logic, and therefore logic and science cannot prove or disprove those axioms. As Massimo sarcastically says elsewhere, "this is logic 101". Yet he missed it, and missed it completely.

The error here is that the “analyst” is not equipped with the tools to do the analysis that he undertakes. By not even understanding axioms vs. premises and their role in logic, Massimo has undermined his intellectual authority to pass judgment on the philosophy of another.

However, this is not uncommon, especially amongst the public intellectuals, of which Massimo advertises himself as one. The problem arises not from the quantity of intellect in pounds and ounces, but from the ideological blockage to the proper use of that intellect. In many cases, the blockage is the ideology of Free Thought, Humanism, and Philosophical Materialism, all of which Massimo subscribes to.

These ideological rational delimiters serve as boundaries within which the logical processes are allowed to operate; they serve as faux axioms for the Free Thinker. So even the standard axioms of logic are subservient to these new, hardly rational, boundary conditions. False axioms cannot produce reliably valid output.

For Massimo and the thinking-freely crowd, there are no real logical limitations so long as one stays inside the ideological boundaries – on reservation, as it were. Massimo continues:

”Things get a bit more interesting when we get to the third axiom, the one concerning consciousness. According to Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, “consciousness [is] the faculty of perceiving that which exists.” Well, no, that would be sensorial perception, which we share with the other animals. Consciousness is best thought of as a particular type of internal perception, the paying attention to our own mental states, analogous to what cognitive scientists call proprioception, the ability our brain has to monitor internal physical states.”

Now Rand did not say “perceiving that which exists externally”. She said “exists”. Massimo misinterprets in his haste to find Rand lacking. So he then makes the incredible leap that consciousness is merely the monitoring of our internal states, nothing more. He does not justify this in any way. He merely declares it to be so.

Oddly, most conscious folk would likely disagree that they are consciously and constantly merely checking their internal physical states, and doing nothing else.

How is it that a triple PhD and university professor can make such statements? And with such confidence that no justification of any type is required?

What is seen here is the unsubtle use of blatant rationalization. The answer is presupposed: Rand cannot be allowed to be right, not about anything. Her philosophy, although Atheist based, is not aligned with conclusions of today’s iconoclastic Atheo-Left. So everything she says, everything she stands for, must be wrong, and thus just saying: “no”, and then plugging in some random thoughts ought to suffice as refutations. There is no need to back up the refutations with the rigor of actual logical steps or syllogistic formats. As Massimo generally does, declarations are made as though factual, without analysis of their source or their logical quality.

And one of the most interesting qualities of Free Thinking is that it is couched within Philosophical Materialism. So if what a Free Thinker says is actually valid (aka true), then there should be physical, material evidence to support it. But there never is. Free Thinking is an end in itself: Free Thinking is Good; so it has to be right. Thus, Free Thinking is similar to imagination-turned-loose-in-a small-arena-of-ideology. And the results of that continuous thinking process are used to fabricate a worldview.

How valid can such a worldview be? For the Free Thinker, it needs no justification. But for the rest of us such a worldview is clearly a delusion.