Some Replies to Objectivists

“Could you please tell me what ‘abstraction’ is in the Objectivist canon?” (An Objectivist)

“Abstraction” (or “abstracting”) is, for Rand, a volitional activity performed by a conscious mind in relation to existents (e.g., entities, attributes of entities, actions of entities, relations between entities, etc.) which it observes in reality. More specifically, it is a process wherein a mind “selectively” focuses upon, and mentally “isolates,” an existent present within a particular context, “omitting” (or regarding as “unspecified”) observed differences as being different from what is being “isolated,” and ”grasping” observed similarities as being similar to what is being mentally “isolated.” Abstraction is an essential phase of Rand’s account of concept formation, and it is intertwined with what Rand calls “measurement” and its subsidiary aspects (e.g., “unit” “measurement omission,” “commensurable characteristics,” etc.) 

“An ‘attribute’ is a mentally isolated element of the structure of an entity.” (An Objectivist)

“‘Attributes’ are not extant ‘things’. They are epistemological abstractions.” (An Objectivist)

This is totally mistaken. Attributes are not entities (or “things”), rather they are existent characteristics or properties of entities. For Rand, attributes and entities are types of existents. (Cf. “The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action.”) Thus, Rand holds that attributes (e.g., the color of a particular book) and entities (e.g., the book which has that particular color) are existents. Although attributes and entities are both extant, only entities are self-subsistent and self-contained existents—attributes are neither self-subsistent nor self-contained existents. 

Although an attribute cannot exist independently of the entity which possesses it, it is nevertheless metaphysically distinct from the entity which possesses it. As evidenced on page 277 of ITOE, Rand makes it clear that attributes of entities are not “epistemological abstractions”—they are not products resulting from our measuring(s) or abstracting(s) from entities. On the contrary, she states that an attribute (e.g., the length of a stick, the shape of a book, the color of a flower, etc.) “does exist in reality, only it doesn’t exist by itself. It is not separable from an entity, but it certainly exists in reality….And therefore if to say it is epistemological rather than metaphysical is to say it exists only in relation to your grasp of it, or it requires your grasp of it in order to acquire existence—it doesn’t. Surely, if anything is metaphysical, attributes are.” 

In a similar vein, the referent of the concept of a particular attribute (e.g., the concept of “red,” the concept of “length,” the concept of “shape,” etc.) is not itself epistemological; on the contrary, the referent of the concept of a particular attribute is the attribute itself (i.e., the referent is the particular attribute possessed by all the entities which happen to possess that attribute). Rand states that although the concept of a particular attribute is the result of an act of “mental isolation” and “abstraction,” the referents of the concept are themselves metaphysical: they exist in reality and constitute the identities of the entities which possess them. The referents of the concept of a particular attribute are not themselves “epistemological abstractions.” As Rand says, on pg. 98 of ITOE, each of an entity’s characteristics (i.e., each of an entity’s attributes) “has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity’s identity”.

“Rand is saying that the attributes yes do exist, but not as a metaphysically distinct thing.” (An Objectivist)

A particular attribute of an entity is not metaphysically separable from the entity which possesses that particular attribute; however, that does not mean that the particular attribute and the entity in question are not metaphysically distinct. On the contrary, a particular attribute of an entity is clearly metaphysically distinct from the entity which possesses that particular attribute. Indeed, if a particular attribute of an entity was not metaphysically distinct (i.e., different) from the entity which possessed it, then the entity in question would be identical to that particular attribute which it possessed—and this is something which Rand rejects (Cf. “An attribute is something which is not the entity itself.” (ITOE, 276)). While Rand holds that an entity is not metaphysically distinct from the totality of its attributes, she holds that the entity is nevertheless metaphysically distinct from anything less than the totality of its attributes. (Cf. “No one attribute constitutes the whole entity, but all of them together are the entity—not “possessed by” but “are” the entity.” (ITOE, 276)) 

Furthermore, absurd contradictions would follow if a particular attribute of an entity was not metaphysically distinct (i.e., different) from the entity which possessed it. To reiterate, if a particular attribute of an entity was not metaphysically distinct (i.e., different) from the entity which possessed it, then the entity in question would be identical to that particular attribute which it possessed. The contradiction can be illustrated with the help of an example. Take, for instance, a book. This book is an entity, and it has many attributes; e.g., a particular shape, a particular color, a particular texture, a particular odor, etc.). If the book’s color (i.e., one of the book’s attributes) was not metaphysically distinct (i.e., different) from the book itself, then the book and the book’s color would be identical—and this is contradictory. Furthermore, if the book’s odor (i.e., one of the book’s attributes) was not metaphysically distinct (i.e., different) from the book itself, then the book and the book’s odor would be identical—and this is also contradictory. However, another contradiction would arise. Since identity is transitive (e.g., If A = B, and B = C, then A = C) it follows that if the book’s color was identical to the book, and the book was identical to the book’s odor, then the book’s color would be identical to the book’s odor—and this is absurd.

Another important point concerns identity. For Rand (and Peikoff), the totality of a thing’s characteristics (attributes) constitutes a thing’s identity because the totality of a thing’s characteristics is the thing’s identity. A thing is identical to the totality of its characteristics (attributes).  Suppose one asks the following question: Why is it the case that an existent apart from its characteristics would be an existent apart from its identity? Rand’s (and Peikoff’s) answer is straightforward and clear: An existent is nothing more than, and nothing less than, the totality of its characteristics. The totality of an existent’s characteristics just is the existent’s identity, and the identity of an existent just is that existent itself. For example:

“Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents.” (ITOE, 56)

“Metaphysically, an entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity’s identity.” (ITOE, 98)

“A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. An existent apart from its characteristics, would be an existent apart from its identity, which means: a nothing, a non-existent.” (ITOE, 142)

“Now, what is an entity? It is a sum of characteristics. There is no such thing as an entity without its characteristics, and, for that very reason, there is no such thing as a characteristic without an entity….Usually when I write I say the entity is its attributes….The attributes are the entity, or an entity is its attributes.” (ITOE, 266)

“No one attribute constitutes the whole entity, but all of them together are the entity—not “possessed by” but “are” the entity.” (ITOE, 276)

“A thing’s nature is that which it is metaphysically; a thing’s nature is its identity, that which cannot be changed by miracle nor by any wish, whim, or will, God’s or man’s. This is the meaning of “A is A”.” (Letters of Ayn Rand, 528-529)

“A thing is itself; or, in the traditional formula, A is A. The “identity” of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics…Ayn Rand offers a new formulation of this axiom: existence is identity. She does not say “existence has identity”—which might suggest that identity is a feature separable from existence (as a coat of paint is separable from the house that has it). The point is that to be is to be something. Existence and identity are indivisible; either implies the other. If something exists, then something exists; and if there is a something, then there is a something. The fundamental fact cannot be broken in two.” (OPAR, 7)

“A thing cannot act apart from its nature, because existence is identity; apart from its nature, a thing is nothing. A thing cannot act against its nature, i.e., in contradiction to its identity, because A is A and contradictions are impossible. In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature.” (OPAR, 15)

“The axiom of identity holds that each thing is itself, or, as Rand frequently puts it: “A is A.” The force of this statement is perfectly captured in Bishop Butler’s famous remark, “Every thing is what it is, and not another thing.” “Identity” names the fact that everything that is is something in particular. A given thing’s identity is the sum total of all of its characteristics. Synonyms for something’s “identity” might be its “character” or its “nature,” so long as it is understood that a thing’s identity at any given moment refers to all of its attributes, actions, relations, and so on.” (Blackwell Companion to Rand, 249) 

“The relation of the attributes of an entity to the whole entity; an entity is its attributes and a state of awareness is its aspects.” (Binswanger, How We Know, 57)

Likewise, Rand emphasizes that an existent does not “possess” or “have” the totality of its characteristics because that would imply that the totality of the existent’s characteristics is something distinct or different from the existent “possessive” of said totality of characteristics. It is for this same reason that Rand insists that an existent is identical to its identity, rather than “possess” or “have” its identity. To suppose that an existent “possessed” or “had” its identity would imply that the identity “possessed by” or “had by” the existent was something distinct or different from the existent itself—and this is something which Rand and Peikoff explicitly reject. Indeed, it would be to suppose that an existent was something apart from, distinct from, and different from “itself”—a contradiction. As Rand and Peikoff say: it would be “a nothing, a non-existent.”

Reading Notes: March 27th, 2023

“The basic commitment of empiricism is that all conceptual content derives from experience. The idealism of the empiricists, however, does not follow directly from this principle alone. Among the theses that combined with the empiricists principle to yield idealism are: (1) the myth of the given; (2) the belief that what is given is one’s current mental state; (3) the belief in the atomic, hierarchical, constructivist structure of the mental or conceptual realm; (4) the belief in the fundamental unity of the sensory and the conceptual; and (5) the belief that conceptual content is derived from sensory content by abstraction. How these principles combined to yield forms of idealism in both eighteenth- and twentieth-century empiricism is, in general, clear: The empiricist takes sensory experience not only to be knowledge, but to be the very paradigm of knowledge and the source—via abstraction—of all concepts and meaning. If sensory experience is not only what we know first and best, but also is the only and ultimate source of all conceptual content, from which all our ideas must be derived or constructed, then our concepts and our knowledge are limited to the sensory and constructions therefrom. The sensory is mental, our concepts are mental; thus, there is no way to reach beyond the mental, so the mental must be ontologically and explanatorily prior to any other form of being. This basic reasoning can be found just as much in the twentieth-century phenomenalists as in Berkeley and Hume.” (deVries, Getting Beyond Idealisms, 212-213) 

“The myth of the given is a multi-dimensional thesis, in that it has both methodological and substantive sides. The myth of the given is the doctrine that the cognitive states of any cognitive subject include some that are both (1) epistemically basic (independent of the epistemic status of any other cognitive state), and (2) warrant the subject’s non-basic cognitive states. Such basic cognitive states are traditionally taken to be the beginning points of all knowledge and inquiry, as well as “the ultimate court of appeals for all factual claims-particular and general-about the world”….In pre-Kantian thought, it was commonplace to assume that what is given is our own mental state: we know our minds first and best. Methodologically, the belief that one's own mental states are what is given encourages a deliberate naivete about the process of understanding our own minds. We need only direct our thoughts to consciousness itself and we will, perhaps with some practice or training, gain insight into its very nature. The idea that consciousness is somehow immediate and transparent to itself discourages us from recognizing both that theory is called for in order to understand consciousness and the mind, and that the appropriate philosophical theory is distinctively meta. One of the important developments in twentieth-century philosophy, one that Sellars helped solidify, is the realization that philosophical questions about the intrinsic characteristics of the mental fundamentally concern the logic of those dimensions of our conceptual framework that describe, explain, and express our mental or conscious lives….Methodologically, Sellars replaces the enterprise of analyzing the mind or mental states with that of analyzing our concepts of mind and mental states. The difference is not trivial. It is the difference between a philosophy of mind that knows itself to be philosophy and a philosophy of mind that still confuses itself with psychology.” (deVries, Getting Beyond Idealisms, 215-216) 

“Turning to the substantive side, there are at least two distinguishable beliefs associated with the myth that mental states are given. One is the thesis that if x is a mental state, then we are directly conscious of it. This is a very strong claim; it is often weakened to the thesis that if x is a mental state, then we can be directly conscious of it. The mental is always available for our direct awareness or inspection. I'll call this the immediacy of the mental. (IM) X is mental ⟹ x is available to direct consciousness. Conversely, it has also been held that what is available for our direct awareness is the mental. We can call this claim the mentality of the immediate: (MI) X is available to direct consciousness ⟹ x is mental….If something is available to consciousness, it is still an open question how it appears in consciousness, as what it is available to consciousness. In the baldest form of the givenness of the mental, consciousness of a mental state is necessarily of that mental state in propria persona, that is, as the mental state it is. We can therefore distinguish a stronger form of the immediacy of the mental (IMS) X is mental ⟹ x is available to direct consciousness as the mental state it is.” (deVries, Getting Beyond Idealisms, 216-217)

Reading Notes: March 24th, 2023

“Some reductionistic biologists adopt a different position. They hold that consciousness is identical to, that is, the same as, the physiological and physio-chemical actions of the brain. They believe that the reduction of consciousness to the laws of physics will be achieved when every different or unique conscious state or experience is correlated with a particular or unique physio-chemical state of the brain. This position is referred to as a “psycho-neural identity theory.” There are two implications of all psycho-neural identity theories which contradict the principle of reduction. In the first place, it is a blatant contradiction to argue that mental states are identical with physio-chemical states and at the same time to maintain that the two can be correlated. To correlate is to compare the occurrence of, or the association between, two different existents, the causal relationship being unknown or unstated. One cannot, in logic, argue that mental states are identical with physico-chemical states and at the same time claim that one can correlate the two. For example, a particular frequency of discharge of neurons in the optic nerve may be correlated with a particular experience of “brightness.” The frequency of discharge and the experience of brightness are not, however, identical. If they were identical, there would be nothing to correlate! The psycho-neural identity theorist thus faces an insurmountable contradiction: The moment he attempts to establish a correlation he has implicitly acknowledged that the two phenomena are different.” (The Objectivist, 1968, Vol. 7, Issue 62, pg. 12-13) 

“The development of human cognition starts with the ability to perceive things, i.e., entities. Of man’s five cognitive senses, only two provide him with a direct awareness of entities: sight and touch. The other three senses—hearing, taste and smell—give him an awareness of some of an entity’s attributes (or of the consequences produced by an entity): they tell him that something makes sounds, or something tastes sweet, or something smells fresh; but in order to perceive this something, he needs sight and/or touch. The concept of “entity” is (implicitly) the start of man’s conceptual development and the building-block of his entire conceptual structure. It is by perceiving entities that man perceives the universe. And in order to concretize his view of existence, it is by means of concepts (language) or by means of his entity-perceiving senses (sight and touch) that he has to do it.” (The Objectivist, 1971, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pg. 2) 

“Cognitively, the sensation of color qua color is of no significance because color serves an incomparably more important function: the sensation of color is the central element of the faculty of sight, it is one of the fundamental means of perceiving entities. Color as such (and its physical causes) is not an entity, but an attribute of entities and cannot exist by itself. (The Objectivist, 1971, Vol. 10, Issue 6, pg. 5) 

“What about a square inch of ground? Is that an entity or not? You can, from an epistemological viewpoint, regard any part of an entity as a separate entity in that context. And a square inch of ground  would be just that. The entity would be the whole ground; you delimit it and examine one square inch of it. In the context of your examination, it’s a specific entity, that particular inch, even though metaphysically, in reality, it’s part of many, many other inches like it. The concept of “entity” is an issue of the context in which you define your terms. So that an entity has to be a material object, but what you regard as an entity in any given statement or inquiry depends on your definitions. You can regard part of an entity as a separate entity. And in that sense all the vital organs are entities, and you have a separate science for the brain or the heart or the stomach. And in the context of that science, you study them as separate entities, never dropping the context that they are vital organs of a total entity which is a human being….You distinguish the epistemological aspect from the metaphysical in this sense: you are saying, “I am considering this inch of ground or I am studying this human organ, but I know that metaphysically it’s part of a wider space of ground or of a living human being”.” (ITOE, 269-270)

Reading Notes: March 22nd, 2023

“Spirit, in general, is thought, and by thought man is distinguished from the animal. But we must not imagine that man is on one side thinking and on another side willing, as though he had will in one pocket and thought in another. Such an idea is vain. The distinction between thought and will is only that between a theoretical and a practical relation. They are not two separate faculties. The will is a special way of thinking; it is thought translating itself into reality; it is the impulse of thought to give itself reality. The distinction between thought and will may be expressed in this way. When I think an object, I make of it a thought, and take from it the sensible. Thus, I make of it something which is essentially and directly mine. Only in thought am I self-contained. Conception is the penetration of the object, which is then no longer opposed to me. From it I have taken its own peculiar nature, which it had as an independent object in opposition to me. As Adam said to Eve, “thou art flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone,” so says the spirit, “This object is spirit of my spirit, and all alienation has disappeared.” Any idea is a universalizing, and this process belongs to thinking. To make something universal is to think. The “I” is thought and the universal. When I say “I”, I let fall all particularity of character, natural endowment, knowledge, age. The I is empty, a point and simple, but in its simplicity active. The gaily coloured world is before me; I stand opposed to it, and in this relation I cancel and transcend the opposition, and make the content my own. The I is at home in the world, when it knows it, and still more when it has conceived it.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, §4)

“The efficient or motive principle, which is not merely the analysis but the production of the several elements of the universal, I call dialectic. Dialectic is not that process in which an object or proposition, presented, to feeling or the direct consciousness, is analysed, entangled, taken hither and thither, until at last its contrary is derived. Such a merely negative method appears frequently in Plato. It may fix the opposite of any notion, or reveal the contradiction contained in it, as did the ancient scepticism, or it may in a feeble way consider an approximation to truth, or modern half-and-half attainment of it, as its goal. But the higher dialectic of the conception does not merely apprehend any phase as a limit and opposite, but produces out of this negative a positive content and result. Only by such a course is there development and inherent progress. Hence this dialectic is not the external agency of subjective thinking, but the private soul of the content, which unfolds its branches and fruit organically. Thought regards this development of the idea and of the peculiar activity of the reason of the idea as only subjective, but is on its side unable to make any addition. To consider anything rationally is not to bring reason to it from the outside, and work it up in this way, but to count it as itself reasonable. Here it is spirit in its freedom, the summit of self-conscious reason, which gives itself actuality, and produces itself as the existing world. The business of science is simply to bring the specific work of the reason, which is in the thing, to consciousness.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, §31)