Objectivism Mind-Body Dichotomy
by Joseph Rowlands

Let me start by saying that I don't believe that Objectivism, properly understood, has a mind-body dichotomy. In fact, it goes to great lengths to identify the false dichotomy and to make sure to avoid it. But while the theory may avoid it, there is always room for problems in practice.

The place to start is to note that Objectivism as a movement is all about promoting ideas. Objectivism is a philosophy, which is an integrated system of ideas. The movement consists of those people who take the time to understand and promote the ideas. The key figures in the movement are all philosophers. The major events are conferences filled with lectures. The key products are books and lectures.

All of this makes sense, and there's no necessary problem here. Of course ideas are the central concern in a movement about ideas. And yet, it's very easy for participants in the movement to adopt a movement-specific set of values and virtues. One of the major values in the movement is a detailed understanding of the philosophy. Another value is ideological purity. Some reject that value and instead pursue intellectual creativity. The pecking order with the movement is based on how well you understand the philosophy.

Contrast all of this with the Randian heroes within Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The pecking order is different there. Your perceived value is in terms of your productive capability. Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden were huge achievers and productive geniuses. They were also philosophically confused. But their greatness wasn't measured by the standard of philosophical detail. They were measured by their productive ability.

Among self-described Objectivists, it is common to see people who have achieved little in life and have no particular plans to change that anytime soon. And yet, they feel a sense of superiority or pride. They feel good because they see the truth in Objectivism while most people can't. Or they feel pride in having mastered the subject to some degree, while most people wouldn't be interested. It is their ideas that are of central value.

If Objectivism were adopted widely, the values adopted would be very different. They wouldn't be focused on their beliefs. They would be concerned with how well they are living their lives. The ideas would be seen as a set of tools to help promote their lives, instead of as the goal of their lives. Pride would occur when they translated ideas into practice. Without that step, the ideas would be viewed as a complete and utter waste. Why develop such wonderful tools if you aren't ever going to use them?

Even the products of the movement are geared towards those trying to learn the philosophy in more detail. Books and lectures are made to help people shore up the theoretical underpinnings of the philosophy, or to concretize the abstract ideas so they can be understood better. The goal is clearly to provide the philosophy to others who are interested in learning them thoroughly and hopefully providing them to others. The movement is in the early phase where its primary goal is to expand the group of people doing the expanding.

This has to change at some point. Eventually, the philosophy would have to be presented to those who are seeking to improve their own lives, instead of those seeking to present the philosophy. Does everyone need to understand the nuances of concept-formation, or the flaws in the analytic-synthetic dichotomy? Many of the details are needed as a kind of proof for the rest of the system, and to answer potential rebuttals. There's clearly a value in developing these ideas and making them available. But if the goal is primarily to practice Objectivism, are the priorities really identical? Do you really need that deep of an understanding where need to devote decades of your life to understand it in detail? Does everyone need to familiarize themselves with other philosophical theories and read intellectual ammunition articles so they can easily rebut any criticisms?

This approach partially explains why many people think that Objectivism can never really catch on. These people see themselves as particularly bright and interested in the gory details of the philosophy, but can't imagine a world where average people are this interested. They can't imagine that people will take the years of study it takes to become proficient with the system of ideas.

But of course, that all assumes that the way people learn Objectivism, the values that they need to have to study it, the pride they take in making new connections, are all necessary component of adopting the philosophy. But the approach taken aims at a solid theoretical understanding, and is almost dismissive of actually putting the ideas into practice. Not that they would explicitly dismiss the value. But if you look at the pecking order among Objectivists, the ability to live a quality life is not a major criteria of success.

None of this is meant to suggest that there is no value in understanding Objectivism in detail. Instead, it is meant to highlight the fact that ideas are important based on what you do with them. Understanding for understandings sake, with no effort to put the ideas into practice, is a waste and in conflict with the philosophy itself. Putting those ideas into practice in your own life is one place they should be used.

Instead of thinking about Objectivist ideas in terms of their relationship with other philosophical ideas or how well they integrate with one another, they should be thought of in terms of how to promote your own life. And this does not mean simply pointing out that they can, in theory, be useful. The goal should be to actually connect these ideas to your life, to put them into practice, and to see how productive and practical they actually are. This should be the absolute minimum.

If on top of that you want to learn the ideas so that you can promote the philosophy, that can be worthwhile as well. But even that needs to be thought of in terms of productivity. How do you promote the philosophy? Is arguing on an Objectivist forum really beneficial? How deep of an understanding do you need? That should be answered in terms of the method you intend to use to promote the ideas.

It does make sense that the Objectivist movement, as a kind of quasi-organization, will value the attributes that are most useful for the goal of the organization. This can include a comprehensive understanding of the philosophy, although it may also value those who communicate ideas well, or who find new audiences, or any number of other worthwhile values. But participants should always remember that these are just the organization's values, and not a measure of how well you actually practice the philosophy or live your life. Your own life should be the measure of your success.

Discuss this Article (20 messages)