OPAR 1.2: Cause and Effect

Every action that occurs in the universe has a cause, according to Objectivism. But an action is not caused by some earlier event or series of events, and nor is it caused by random chance or the whim of a supernatural deity. Rather, every action in the universe is caused by the nature of the entity which acts. This is Objectivism’s law of causality. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action.

Rand’s law of causality is basically the same thing as the law of identity, just pertaining to things that entities do. “To be is to be something,” writes Peikoff, “and to be something is to act accordingly” (OPAR, 17). In this way, the law of causality is a corollary of the law of identity rather than an axiom itself. It is a self-evident implication of an already established principle (15), flowing naturally out of the axiom which precedes it.

Just as all entities have certain characteristics and not others, so do entities act in certain ways and not others. For example, when thrown at a wall, a ceramic plate will smash into pieces while a rubber ball will bounce back at the thrower. A water balloon will splatter. A feather will probably not make it all the way over to the wall but will flutter around in the air before eventually coming to rest wherever the movement of the air pushes it. The law of causality states that entities will always act in accordance with their natures and in no other way. A feather will not splatter against the wall, spewing water in every direction; nor will a rubber ball shatter into hundreds of ceramic pieces. A plate will never make a good item with which to play Wallball because when thrown, a ceramic plate will always shatter (given that the wall is made out of concrete and that the plate is thrown with force). Within a given set of circumstances, an entity will only act in the one way that its nature allows—the way that expresses its identity. Entities can never act outside of or in contradiction to their natures. The only reason a plate will ever not shatter is if the circumstances change (i.e., if it is thrown into a swimming pool). All actions in the universe are the actions of entities, and the actions of entities are limited by their natures.

What is the significance of the law of causality? If Rand’s cause and effect principle is true, then the universe can never be described as chaotic. Chaos doesn’t exist, and neither does random chance. Everything that happens happens because the entities involved have certain attributes and will always act in certain ways when the circumstances are right. There are no such things as mystical, supernatural, or random occurrences. Rainbows are not placed in the sky by a supernatural deity sending a message to humans about how he will never flood the earth again. Rather, rainbows occur because rain has a specific nature, light has a specific nature, and air has a specific nature. When the circumstances are right (water droplets are floating in the air, the sun is behind you, the clouds are cleared away from the sun, and your viewing angle is 42 degrees) you will see a rainbow. Ta da!

This is natural law. Natural law paves the road for science!

The law of causality is a metaphysical principle rather than an epistemological one. It specifies only that which is; it does not specify what we can know or predict. Just because this law rules the universe does not mean that humans will necessarily be able to predict specific events. “Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature” (17), writes Peikoff. Causality is totally independent of our consciousness. Things do, in fact, act in accordance to their natures, whether we are able to predict the movement of subatomic particles or not. So, on the one hand, while the law of causality does not give us knowledge of specific actions or why they happened, neither is it subjective. As Peikoff puts it, “causality—for Objectivism as for Aristotelianism—is a law inherent in being qua being …. It is part of the fabric of reality as such” (17). The universe is made up of entities that have specific identities and act in certain ways and only those ways. This will never change. It just is. After all, “to be is to be something,” and whatever a thing does, it does because of its nature.

Questions and Concerns:

  • Peikoff says that the concept of entity is “an axiomatic concept, which is presupposed by all subsequent human cognition, although it is not a basic axiom” (12-13). What is the difference between an axiom, a basic axiom, and an axiomatic concept?
  • It seems like everything that exists (except for axioms) can be reduced to component parts, each of which is an entity. But each entity, whether it’s composed of a billion entities or just two, has a specific nature according to the law of identity. But how would you determine, say, the “nature” of “Amazon.com” or “public schooling” as entities? These entities have millions of moving parts and components and are capable of hundreds, if not thousands or millions of actions. This seems like it may be an epistemological question rather than a metaphysical one, but I am not sure how one would determine the nature of such a huge and complex thing.
  • But what about human beings? How does the law of causality apply to entities who have free will and the power of choice?
  • Does Peikoff really think that humans, with their power of choice, can only ever act in one way in a given set of circumstances? Isn’t that rather deterministic? I thought Rand believed in free will.

Level of Difficulty: Medium

Mystery Number: 85

Works Cited:

  1. Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (New York: Dutton, 1991). New York: Meridian, 1993.

OPAR 1.1: Rand’s Three Axioms

[Edit 8/5/17: The more I think about the axioms, the more I think that this post should be rewritten. But I am not going to rewrite it, not at least until I have progressed much further in this project. Please consider this post my imperfect first attempt at grasping the axioms rather than a finished product.]

I thought that this first post was going to be simple and straightforward. Axioms, after all, are supposed to be the self-evident starting points for all knowledge, the most primary and provable facts in the universe upon which all philosophy rests. This should be easy, I said to myself at the end of April as I grabbed my copy of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and sat down to bang out this blog post. Cake! Rand’s axioms are just three simple facts that require no logic or abstraction in order to be proven, right? Two and a half months later, it turns out that I was wrong—not wrong about the axioms being primary and self-evident—but wrong about how easy they would be to understand.

Rand’s axioms are unusual and complex. Grasping their full implications is no piece of cake, I discovered. But since the whole purpose for undertaking this blog series is to better understand Rand’s philosophy, I suppose tackling this first section of Peikoff’s book couldn’t have turned out better.

An axiom, according to Ayn Rand, is a fundamental fact that cannot not be true (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55). By fundamental, I mean that the thing cannot be reduced any more than it has already been reduced. If it is possible to break down a fact or idea into component parts, then that fact or idea is not an axiom. For example, take the fact that the sky is blue. The sky is blue depends upon three component concepts: the concept of sky, the concept of is-ness, and the concept of blue-ness. These three component concepts raise the questions, “Well, what is the sky?” and, “What is blueness?” and, “What does it mean to be something?” And in order to answer those questions, you have to get even more fundamental and ask: “What are the unique characteristics that distinguish the sky from other entities?” and, “What is color?” Thus, one reason why the sky is blue would not be considered an axiomatic concept by Rand’s definition is that it can be reduced into component concepts.

Epistemologically, all concepts are built out of other, more fundamental concepts, which are built from other, more fundamental concepts, etc. To look for axioms, you would step down through the concepts like a person climbing down a ladder until you hit the bottom, meaning that you cannot reduce any further. Axioms are the ocean floor of knowledge. In, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand writes: “An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest” (55).

To reiterate, Rand’s definition of axioms is that they are:

  • Fundamental and primary (not able to be reduced into component parts).
  • Implicit in all knowledge.
  • Directly perceived.
  • All possible proofs and explanations rest on them.

According to Rand’s criteria then, a second reason why the sky is blue would not be considered axiomatic is that it is not a fact that is universally depended upon. There are lots of ideas out there in the world that have nothing to do with the sky being blue and do not depend on the sky being blue at all. In order to be an axiom, a concept must be an implicit building block underlying all ideas that exist.

But is it possible for any fact or idea to meet these criteria? According to Rand, yes. Rand’s three axioms are:

  1. Existence exists.
  2. Consciousness exists.
  3. A thing is itself (identity exists).

But frankly, my explanation here is a backwards way of arriving at the axioms. As fundamental building blocks, one is really not supposed to arrive at the axioms by pondering or abstracting or reducing or walking down a conceptual ladder. What I have presented here so far is a method for reaching the axioms as concepts after the fact rather than arriving at the direct knowledge of the axioms as perceptual facts. It is totally possible to come to know the axioms backwards, by reducing concepts into their component parts until you find the bottom, but really, all people with consciousness have already accepted the axioms (implicitly) by going in the opposite direction—by starting as a baby or as a brand new consciousness waking up to existence. From a baby’s perspective, the axioms are directly perceivable, the first (implicit) pieces of knowledge that one can know. What makes this a bit confusing and complex, though, is that there are two different methods of dealing with the axioms: sense perception and conceptual abstraction. Sense perception is how you directly know and validate the axioms, yet conceptual abstraction is how you philosophically explain and “prove” them verbally. These two methods are so different that it can make things a little confusing—or at least, it did for me.

Axiom #1 posits that something is. That box across the room is. The wind that is making me feel cold right now exists. Those pillows are. I open my eyes and see a wild blur of shapes and colors, and all of that is. Something exists.

The first axiom is self-evident in that it is verifiable just by opening your eyes, hearing a noise, smelling or tasting something, or touching an object. It does not matter what you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch; in some way, shape, or form, you perceive that something is. The first axiom is not an idea, really. It is an experience of fact accessible even to the tiniest baby. To experience something—anything—is to know (implicitly) that something exists.

Peikoff writes, “The concept of ‘existence’ is the widest of all concepts. It subsumes everything—every entity, action, attribute, relationship (including every state of consciousness)—everything which is, was, or will be. The concept does not specify that a physical world exists. As the first concept at the base of knowledge, it covers only what is known, implicitly or not explicitly, by the gamut of the human race, from the newborn baby or the lowest savage on through the greatest scientist and the most erudite sage. All of these know equally the fundamental fact that there is something, something as against nothing” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 5).

The first axiom, then, states that existence, the widest possible concept that subsumes everything of which we could ever possibly be aware, exists.

But how could I, the person who tasted a blueberry or felt the wind against my face, have apprehended that existence exists if I do not possess some sort of capacity for perceiving existence? Inherent in the statement, “Existence exists” is the fact that I, the perceiver of existence, possess consciousness. It is impossible to perceive anything without having some sort of mental awareness. If you open your eyes to the universe and acknowledge that there is something out there, what you have also acknowledged is that there is something—of which you are aware. One cannot know that existence exists without first having consciousness, without possessing the capacity to perceive in the first place.

Axiom #2 could also be summed up as: My perception of something exists. Peikoff includes this crucial passage from Atlas Shrugged in explanation of the second axiom:

“If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness. Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it” (Atlas Shrugged, 942).

I find the second axiom slightly more difficult to grasp than the first but still fairly straightforward. It is easy to understand that if I suddenly feel something hard and round hit me in the face, that I must be aware of something that exists.

I had the most trouble with Rand’s third axiom: identity. “To be is to be something,” writes Peikoff (OPAR, 7). If you perceive something, you are, after all, perceiving a specific set of features and characteristics. Things have identities. Existence is not just a giant blank space. Or, even if existence were to be a giant blank space, it would still be a “giant blank space,” which would be its identity.

Identity in a Randian sense does not mean what it meant to Plato (this, I think, is where much of my confusion with axiom #3 comes from). Identify is not some predetermined “form” that floats down from another dimension and implants itself in our minds, like a gift from the supernatural gods. For Rand, identity is simply: a thing’s characteristics. So, if you open your eyes and see a bolt of lightning, you are seeing a bright flashy thing that fills the sky and then disappears and makes a loud noise. Lightning’s identity would then be: a bright flashy thing that fills the sky and then disappears and makes a loud noise. That experience of perceiving lightning, in addition to implying existence and consciousness, also implies identity because to perceive is to perceive something. To perceive something is to perceive a specific set of features and characteristics. Lightning has different characteristics than a lobster or a scream. A is A. A thing is itself.

In Peikoff’s words, “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). In this sense, existence and identity are really just two aspects of the same thing. Existence is identity. To be is to be something. Can you imagine a thing that exists that is not something? To exist is to have characteristics. Every attribute we perceive is simply an aspect of existence, an identifiable thing. Itself.

To make any statement about anything ever is to assume these three axioms: existence, consciousness, and identity. All three can be summed up in the statement, “There is something of which I am aware” (OPAR, 7).

There is something of which I am aware:” Existence.

“There is something of which I am aware:” Consciousness.

“There is something of which I am aware:” Identity.

The tricky thing about axioms is that in order to explain them, you have to take something that is purely perceptual (raw data or a raw impression upon the senses) and turn that empirical something into a statement, which is conceptual. Axioms in their observed form are not concepts; they are “perceptual self-evidencies,” according to Peikoff (OPAR, 8). You can be as dumb as a sheep and still implicitly grasp the axioms. All you have to do is look. At anything. The statement, “There is something of which I am aware” is an explicit encapsulation of the axioms, but the actual axioms can be grasped without words, concepts, or anything else having been understood prior. But when you state the axioms in words, you have to use ideas and concepts to explain and validate them. The phrase, “existence exists” is a conceptualization of a percept, but it is not the percept itself. “Consciousness exists” is a conceptualization of a percept, but that statement is not the percept itself. “A is A” is a conceptualization of a percept, but it is not the same thing as perceiving the actual characteristics of a thing. So, a person comes to know the axioms by sense perception, but establishes the axioms’ connection to reality and validates their authenticity via reasoning and conceptualization. Peikoff says that it is important to philosophically validate the axioms because it is easy to ignore or not understand them in explicit terms (even while a person might accept them implicitly and rely on them for every thought, question, and statement), which can cause serious philosophical problems down the road (OPAR, 8-9).

Looking at reality is also how the axioms are “proven,” although Rand and Peikoff would say that there is no proving the axioms, as “proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge, and nothing is antecedent to axioms” (OPAR, 8). In other words, one cannot prove the axioms in the same way that one can prove that Crater Lake is in Oregon. To prove the presence of Crater Lake, one would start by lining up preexisting facts about geology and location to determine whether those facts point toward a particular lake existing in a particular spot. But there are no facts that precede “existence,” “consciousness,” and “identity.” Rather than rely on antecedent knowledge as proof of the axioms, Rand calls on sense perception. Look at reality. Do it. Just look at reality. There you go. There is nothing else to be said about the axioms other than the fact that when you see something, you know that something exists and that you are aware of it. There is no evidence of this being true beyond the fact that you are perceiving a thing. That is Rand’s proof of the axioms.

Everyone who has ever had anything to say about anything has presupposed and relied upon the axioms. According to Peikoff, “the axioms are invulnerable” (OPAR, 10). Any challenge or objection to the axioms is actually a reaffirmation of them, no matter what. Rand writes, “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” (Atlas Shrugged, 965). This is another way to “prove” the axioms’ validity; just get into a conversation with someone and watch them struggle to articulate something, anything at all, without relying in some way on the fact that existence exists, that they possess consciousness, and that things have identities.

So, those are the axioms. Here are some questions and concerns I imagine people might have about this subject:

  • Did Rand come up with these axioms entirely on her own? Or did she borrow from other philosophers? If she borrowed, which other philosophers explicitly treated existence, consciousness, and identity as axioms?
  • Are there different, competing axioms that other philosophers who disagree with Rand profess? If so, what are those axioms?
  • Are the axioms accessible to animals? Can anyone or anything implicitly grasp the axioms as long as it has a brain? Is there a cut off point (for example, can worms grasp the axioms)?
  • What if reality as we know it turns out to be a computer simulation created by aliens? Would that mean that Rand’s axioms misled us into thinking reality is something that it isn’t?
  • Why do the axioms matter in the first place? Why bother identifying and explaining them at all if they are so self-evident?
  • If the axioms are so self-evident, then why doesn’t everyone agree about them?
  • Can sense perception really be the basis of all knowledge? Philosophers disagree on whether or not the senses can or should be trusted. How can a person build a reliable philosophy using senses that cannot be trusted to perceive reality as it “actually” is?
  • Does the fact that acceptance of the axioms is necessary for all conceptual thought mean that the axioms are true automatically? Couldn’t it be possible that even though we all rely on them, the axioms aren’t necessarily true?
  • Some people say that logic is overrated. There are other ways of thinking and of knowing that do not involve sense perception and logic. Therefore, aren’t the axioms just the result of an epistemological bias toward Western methods of knowing?
  • What if Rand’s axioms are merely the result of the way that language has developed and is used? Just because the axioms are implicit in all language does not necessarily mean that the axioms are real beyond the world of linguistics.

I am not actually going to address any of these questions right now. I’d rather let them simmer.

Existence. Consciousness. Identity. Rand’s axioms are on the one hand the most obvious facts a person could ever understand, so graspable and basic that everyone implicitly accepts them. On the other hand, the axioms of Objectivism are abstract and complex with implications stretching further into the philosophical sunset than the eye can easily see.


Level of Difficulty: High

Mystery Number: 65

Works Cited:

  1. Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (New York: Dutton, 1991). New York: Meridian, 1993.
  2. Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged (New York: Random House, 1957). New York: Signet, 1959.
  3. Rand, Ayn. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Expanded 2nd Edition. Ed. Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff. New York: Meridian, 1990.

Fifty-Three Topics of OPAR

I am going to try something that will likely be difficult and painstaking. You see, last year, I wrote that I was going to use this blog as a means to understand socialism, but then the world changed, and I did not finish the project. I did write one post exploring the definition of socialism, I did write another post about a terrible lecture on socialism I forced myself to watch (twice), I started reading The Communist Manifesto, and I read half of the book, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises. But then, the mood in America shifted, and my Facebook news feed that had been dominated for months by adulatory articles championing the wonders of Democratic Socialism began to be overtaken by extreme levels of tribal insanity over Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The blistering irrationality of the things people were saying in total seriousness about the election was just so extreme that I could not look away. And so, I did not become a godlike expert in Democratic Socialism like I had wanted.

I want something different now. Not that Democratic Socialism isn’t important—it is. And not that I am a flake—I don’t think I am. But rather, there are twelve chapters in the book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand with fifty-three chapter subheadings in total that I would very much like to write about.

Ayn Rand is the shit, you see. Her major works include three novels, two works of short fiction, a play, and seven works of nonfiction from about 1935 to 1980. Inspired to a great extent by Aristotle, Rand developed her own philosophical system called Objectivism, the essence of which she summed up as, “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute” (from the appendix of Atlas Shrugged). An atheist and a laissez-faire capitalist, Rand once said in an interview with Raymond Newman: “Philosophy, since it underlies everything in life, cannot be presented too briefly,” which anyone who has ever read Atlas Shrugged can appreciate.

Rand also said, “If Objectivism could have been presently briefly, I should have done so. Instead, I have written millions of words, and even at that, I cannot say that I have completely finished.” What’s interesting is that apart from John Galt’s 50-page speech in Atlas Shrugged, and apart from the topic-specific explications contained in her nonfiction works, Rand wrote no all-inclusive treatise on her philosophy of Objectivism. She left that task to Dr. Leonard Peikoff, whom she designated as her philosophical heir and best interpreter. In 1991, Peikoff published the book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand based largely on a lecture course he gave in 1976 entitled, “The Philosophy of Objectivism.” Those original lectures were attended by Rand, and she stated, “Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff’s course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism—that is, the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate.” Rand never wrote that treatise. In other words, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (or OPAR, for short) is the only complete disquisition on Ayn Rand’s philosophy that exists.

What does this have to do with my blog? Well, in the summer and fall of 2014, I read the following Randian works:

  • The Fountainhead 
  • Atlas Shrugged 
  • Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 
  • For the New Intellectual 

Then, in 2015 and 2016, I read the following works by Peikoff:

  • Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
  • The Ominous Parallels 
  • Understanding Objectivism: A Guide to Learning Ayn Rand’s Philosophy
  • The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out

I also started reading all of the following books last year but have not yet finished them:

  • Philosophy: Who Needs It
  • The Virtue of Selfishness
  • Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
  • The Romantic Manifesto

I have a problem, though. You see, over the past three years, I read all of this philosophical material a little too quickly without focusing on each conceptual element long enough for the ideas to properly simmer or integrate. I didn’t intellectually “chew” on the content long enough to digest it in the way that ideas should really be digested. I would read a book, say to myself, “That seems probably awesome!” and then immediately go on to another book before coming to any real conclusions about the ideas in the previous book or even allowing the ideas to become 100% clear in my mind. I was like a person who sits down to a delicious 7-course meal, scarfs everything on the table in two minutes, and then cannot remember all of the details about what exactly I ate other than that it agreed with me and was probably delicious.

Peikoff once stated in a lecture on the Objectivist theory of concepts:

The proper teacher therefore, has to take you in stages, let you absorb a certain amount, let you automatize it in your mind, and this then frees you to absorb further material at a later time….And then as your knowledge grows, we revisit the issue in a more complex perspective, go over the same subject again, but from new, more advanced angles. We see new meanings in older points which are eliminated by our new context….It would in short be—a spiral. We go over and over the same issues and topics, again and again, each time from a more complex perspective. That is what we mean by the spiral progression of knowledge.

In other words, knowledge progresses in the shape of a spiral rather than in a straight line. You learn something initially in whatever way you can grasp it, and then, after living a little and learning other things, you return to that original something and consider it from a more complex perspective. And then you do it again. And so on. And then you become a philosophical master of the universe.

The purpose of this new blog project will be to use Peikoff’s notion of the spiral theory of knowledge as inspiration for a re-read and second exploration of the book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The book has twelve chapters (Reality, Sense Perception and Volition, Concept-Formation, Objectivity, Reason, Man, The Good, Virtue, Happiness, Government, Capitalism, and Art) that are structured hierarchically. Each chapter builds on the chapters that came before. It is a worthy book, one that deserves to be read more than once (not as a wild and starving savage), and it is a book I believe will help me develop a better understanding both of Rand’s philosophy and of my own assessment of Objectivism.

Within each blog post, I plan to address:

  • What idea is covered in the section?
  • How easy or difficult is this particular idea to understand?
  • What questions or concerns might I or other people have about this idea?
  • How integrated is this idea within my own mind? (This last point will be stored in a secret number somewhere within the post.)

In short: fifty-three blog posts on Objectivism are forthcoming. It’s going to be great!

On Crying Wolf

Ever since the election, a huge number of articles, videos, and discussion comments associating Trump with white supremacy have catapulted across the internet. There has been a lot of this:

“I feel like personally apologizing to every POC, LGBT+ person, and woman of childbearing age. I want to live in a Stronger Together America, not a white nationalist fascist America.”

and this:

“White supremacy and white denial helped Donald Trump win the White House.”

and:

“No Trump, No KKK, no fascist USA.”

and:

“So how long before whites are simply outnumbered by non-whites, so that a strategy based in White Nationalism isn’t enough?”

and:

“Today we saw that in the 21st century, you can run an utterly incompetent campaign headlined by a man utterly and obviously unfit for office, and as long as your guiding star is white nationalism you have a good shot at the win.”

and:

“If you voted for Trump, your vote encouraged the language and actions in this video [of white supremacists giving Trump the Nazi salute]…. Stand up, tell your chosen candidate that he needs to do more than say ‘stop it.'”

In light of this elevated state of concern regarding white supremacy/nationalism, I have been investigating the topic quite a bit, because if it were true that Donald Trump is in favor of white supremacy, that would be extremely concerning.

A few days ago, though, I stumbled across a powerful and well-researched counterargument to the claim that Trump is openly white supremacist and the candidate of the KKK. This author’s counterargument is important and should be considered.

You don’t have to like Trump even slightly to read this, as the author himself is anti-Trump. The conclusion is especially powerful, so read the whole thing.

Two good excerpts:

This, I think, is the first level of crying wolf. What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn’t go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans?

We might want to use words like ‘openly racist’ or ‘openly white supremacist’ to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted ‘openly white supremacist’ on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying ‘I love Hispanics!’

“But as I pointed out in Part 4, a lot of these accusations [against Trump] shy away from the word ‘racism’ precisely because it’s an ambiguous thing with many heterogenous parts, some of which are understandable and resemble the sort of thing normal-but-flawed human beings might think. Now they say ‘KKK white nationalism’ or ‘overt white supremacy’. These terms are powerful exactly because they do not permit the gradations of meaning which this subject demands.

Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of ‘entire campaign built around white supremacy’ and ‘the white power candidate’ is deliberate and dangerous exaggeration. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from ‘ISIS is scary’ to ‘I am scared of all Muslims’. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of ‘KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!’

Please read it. For peace.

You Are Still Crying Wolf

To the Left

Why do politics divide us? Really, why do they?

All people, whether they admit it or not, hold beliefs which are based on other, more fundamental ideas which are based on deeper, even more fundamental ideas which together form a “philosophical pyramid,” if you will. Politics, which rests at the fourth level of this pyramid, concerns itself with defining and enacting a proper social system. Below politics is ethics, which deals with discovering and defining the moral values that people should live by. You can’t decide on the best social system without first having some sort of ethical code (whether you hold that code implicitly or explicitly) that you use to weigh and judge a political system. Beneath ethics sits epistemology, which deals with the question of how humans can claim to know anything at all. You cannot determine which kinds of human behavior are good and which are bad, for example, if you do not have some sort of method by which to know anything at all. To be specific, some people believe that the Bible is an appropriate method of acquiring knowledge; others believe in their innate intuition; others believe in logic; others believe in some mixture of all of these methods; etc. Epistemology provides an answer to the question, “But how do you know?” And finally, below epistemology lies metaphysics, which concerns itself with the question, “What even exists in the first place?” Metaphysics is the investigation into the nature of the universe itself and the kind of world we actually live in. (Do we live in seven dimensions? Or one? Or inside a computer? Or in the hands of a god? Or in an illusion or a dream?)

Why do politics divide us? Because people hold vastly different beliefs about things that lie quite low on the philosophical pyramid. People do not actually agree on the kind of world we live in or on the proper method for acquiring knowledge. They especially do not agree on the proper moral code for human behavior. And so these people will obviously disagree on what kind of social system is the best kind to have in America.

Do politics really divide us in America today because some people are just ignorant, miseducated idiots with hate and fear and sexism and racism in their hearts? Really? Is that the essential reason why this is happening?

I posit no.

And I posit that nothing is going to get better until we face our disagreements for what they actually are: disagreements about the deepest, most important questions of life.

Please stop treating this era in American history like it is the most obvious thing in the world, because it isn’t. If you cannot clearly define the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical positions of the opposing team, you should not present your opinions about the election as authoritative.

This is for you, Left.

A Revision

I would like to qualify my statements from Two Minutes of Hate last week. Throughout the whole (brief) post, I referred to the object of my hatred simply as “politics,” which was an imprecision. I said, for example, “Why hate politics? Because politics puts a crown on the head of the worst methods of human thinking and enshrines those methods on a comfortable throne.” 

My use of the term “politics” did not make clear the distinction between contemporary politics and politics as a vital branch of philosophy. My statements failed to differentiate between politics in essence and politics in the manner in which they are carried out today in our compromised, pluralistic, unprincipled, mixed-bag of a collectivist quasi-democracy.

In philosophy, politics is the fourth level of the pyramid. Politics sits on top of ethics, which sits on top of epistemology, which rests on metaphysics. Politics uses ethics to set goals and determine the proper actions to take in order to bring about the best future for humans living together on Earth. Political philosophy is, according to Ayn Rand, “abstract theory to identify, explain and evaluate the trend of events, to discover their causes, project their consequences, define the problems and offer the solutions” (from Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution). In this sense, I actually love politics.

Compromised, pluralistic, unprincipled, collectivist, quasi-democratic politics are “an affront to the good, the noble, the just, and the true” (to quote myself), but they are not all politics.

I think this distinction matters. I would like to revise what I said.

Two Minutes of Hate

Read “Apolitical Reasons to Hate Politics,” by Bryan Caplan.

Why hate politics? Because politics puts a crown on the head of the worst methods of human thinking and enshrines those methods on a comfortable throne.

Politics utilizes fakery, hyperbole, lies, bandwagons, group-think, and compromise to get its way. With a smile.

Politics is an affront to the good, the noble, the just, and the true.

Politics acts like there is no other way.