1) What is the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy? Describe each of the two alternatives involved in this basic metaphysical issue. Give an example of each. Which viewpoint does Ayn Rand champion?
a) The primacy of consciousness versus the primacy of existence. (pg. 24, second full para down .)
b) Primacy of Existence: is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature and identity… Primacy of Consciousness: The notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine)… (pg. 24, Third full para down.)
c) Primacy of Existence: Francis Bacon saying “Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.” Primacy of Consciousness: “If there is no god, then who created the universe?” or primitive people doing “rain dances” in order to get the rain god to bring them rain.
d) Primacy of Existence.
2) What is the source of the reversal involved in the primacy of consciousness viewpoint? Does the ability to grasp the distinction necessary for the primacy of existence viewpoint come to man automatically?
a) The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived…(Pg. 24, last para)
b) No. “This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.” (pg. 24, bottom)
3) Can the universe, as a whole, come into or go out of existence according to Ayn Rand? If, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the universe as a whole always existed and always will exist, then doesn’t this contradict the findings of scientists, especially given the “big bang” theory of the universe?
a) No. (pg. 25, first full para down.)
b) While the universe may not have always existed in its present form and state, it has always existed, any other conclusion flies in the face of the axiom of existence, which is an impossibility. Physicist Stephen Hawking doesn't seem to think that the universe "came into being": "...he began to question the big bang theory, which by then most had accepted. Perhaps, he suggested, there was never a start and would be no end, but just change -- a constant transition of one "universe" giving way to another through glitches in space-time." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bphawk.html
4) What does it mean to Ayn Rand to say that man is capable of “creation”? What is the “best and briefest identification of man’s power in regard to nature”? Who originally formulated this idea?
a) “Creation” means the power to bring into existence an arrangement of natural elements that had not existed before. “Creation” does not mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. (pg. 25, last para)
b) “Nature to be commanded must be obeyed”
c) Francis Bacon
5) What law governs all the countless forms, motions, combinations, and dissolutions of elements within the universe –from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life? What does Ayn Rand describe as “the metaphysically given”. Is the law of identity what philosopher John Locke meant when he spoke of “the law of nature” (See John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter II, Of the State of Nature, Section 6.)?
a) The law of identity (pg.25, first full para down.)
b) “Nature is the metaphysically given –i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition."
c) I tend to think yes, to the extent that Locke's philosophy make any sense at all.
6) How does man “discover and accept the metaphysically given”?
a) “To perceive existence, to discover the characteristics or properties (the identities) of the things that exist, means to discover and accept the metaphysically given.” (pg. 25, Second full para down)
7) What is Ayn Rand’s position with regard to the human mind and the Law of Identity, that is to say, does she regard the human mind as subject to the Law of Identity? Does Ayn Rand’s view regarding the human mind and the law of identity mean that she believed that the human mind does not possess the faculty of volition?
a) Yes, she regards the human mind as having an identity or nature, like all things. “But man exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity….” (pg. 26, 3rd full para down)
b) “The attribute of volition does not contradict the fact of identity, just as the existence of living organisms does not contradict the existence of inanimate matter…just as animals are able to move only in accordance with the nature of their bodies, so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes; he has power to identify (and to conceive of rearranging) the elements of reality, but not the power to alter them…." (pg. 26, last para.)
8) Although man’s “…faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature…” how does it open “…the way for a host of contradictions…”? What must be accepted because it cannot be changed? What must never be “…accepted uncritically…”?
a) If men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man. (pg. 27, first full para down)
b) The metaphysical must be accepted because it cannot be changed. (pg. 27, Second full para.)
c) The “man-made”, ie, “…any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man”. (pg. 27, second and third full para’s down)
9) Given Ayn Rand’s views on the metaphysical and the man-made, did she believe that “40 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”? Why or why not? Does this mean that one should always disagree with the majority?
a) No, she believed that any number of people could be wrong. (pg. 27, second full para down)
b) "Truth" for Rand is the conformance of one's mind to the metaphysically given, not "whatever the majority says". For instance, Galileo was right that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, even though the majority thought he was wrong.
c) No. The proper procedure is to decide whether the majority is right or wrong. Whether the majority agrees with you or not is not important with regard to the truth of a particular idea. Ayn Rand did not advocate nonconformism for its own sake.
10) Did Ayn Rand think that the “metaphysically given” could be true or false? Given the answer to the first part of this question, what did Ayn Rand define “truth” as?
a) No, the “…metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is –and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments, i.e., his ideas, by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality.” (pg. 27, third full para down.)
b) “Truth” is the correspondence of human ideas to reality.
11) What example does Ayn Rand give in the essay to show the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made? How about this example: a person takes an action that causes an unintended series of causal events to take place that eventually leads to the death of a person he doesn’t know and isn’t aware of in some far-off distant place ; is this the metaphysically given or the man-made, some combination of the two, or something completely different? (Similar to the butterfly flaps its wings in North America, which is a contributing cause to a typhoon in China, but substitute the butterfly with a person clapping his hands.)
a) A flood occurring in an uninhabited island is the metaphysically given, a dam built to contain the flood water is the man-made.(Starting on page 28, top)
b) I tend to think it is not man-made because it was not a result that was chosen by the man clapping his hands, nor was it a result that he could have reasonably foreseen by the use of his mind. (Remember that Ayn Rand defines the “man made” as “…any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man…” (pg. 27, first full para.) Page 28, top, Ayn Rand’s example of the dam breaking may be similar: “…if the builders miscalculate and the dam breaks, the disaster is metaphysical in its origin, but intensified by man in its consequences…”
12) What do concepts like “chance” and “contingency” refer to for Ayn Rand? According to Ayn Rand’s definition of “chance” what does it mean to say that the results of rolling dice are subject to “chance”? Is it possible for a person to predict with certainty what the die roll result would be according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?
a) “…concepts that refer only to man’s lack of knowledge, such as “chance” or “contingency”…” (pg. 29, top)
b) It means that the person rolling the dice usually lacks the knowledge necessary to know what the results of the die roll will be, other than to say that if the dice are “fair” (i.e., not rigged), then the result of any given number, 1-6, showing up on a die is equal to the probability of any other number showing up.
c) Yes, if he had enough prior knowledge of the physics involved (such as the angle of the die roll, the force of the throw, etc.), as well as what the dice were showing before the dice were roled, then somebody could predict with certainty what the result of roling dice would be. (It would require knowledge of a lot of factors, and generally just wouldn't be worth the time or money to figure out.) This position reflects the idea that there is no "inherrent randomness" in the universe, I think.
13) What did Ayn Rand mean by a “package deal”? What is an example of package deal?
a) “Package dealing is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance of value” (pg. 24, footnote)
b) “A disastrous intellectual package-deal, put over on us by the theoreticians of statism, is the equation of economic power with political power. You have heard it expressed in such bromides as: “A hungry man is not free,” or “It makes no difference to a worker whether he takes orders from a businessman or from a bureaucrat….The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power”, between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monolpoy on the use of physical force” (“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)
14) Distinguish a “man-made” fact from a “metaphysically given fact”.
a) (pg. 31, 2nd full para down.)
15) In what two respects does the faculty of volition give man a special status? What does Ayn Rand mean when she says “Nothing can force a man to think.” (pg. 31)? How does one “change” other men given what has been said so far?
a) 1. Unlike the metaphysically given, man’s products, whether material or intellectual, are not to be accepted uncritically. And, 2. by its metaphysically given nature, a man’s volition is outside the power of other men.(pg. 31, 3rd full para down)
b) “Others may offer him incentives or impediments, rewards or punishments, they may destroy his brain by drugs or by the blow of a club, but they cannot order his mind to function: this is in his exclusive, sovereign power.” (pg. 31, 3rd full para down)
I not certain of Rand's position on this issue, but I interpret this to mean that you can hold a gun on someone and force them to do work for you, but you cannot force them to recognize that you are holding a gun on them and that if they don’t do as you say, the consequence is probable death, all of which requires thought, and is not automatic. If he chooses not to think, a man will not even recognize the danger of a gun, and all you could do is kill him, not get him to work.
c) “In regard to man…’to change’ does not mean to force….The only means of ‘changing’ men is the same as the means of ‘changing’ nature: knowledge –which, in regard to men, is to be used as a process of persuasion, when and if their minds are active; when they are not, one must leave them to the consequences of their errors.”
16) What does Ayn Rand view as the psychological or emotional consequence of someone who does not have any “…knowledge of the nature or the functioning of a human consciousness…” (pg. 29, 2nd full para down).
On the implicit premise that consciousness has no identity, men alternate between the feeling that they possess some sort of omnipotent power over their consciousness and can abuse it with impunity (“It doesn’t matter, it’s only in my mind”) –and the feeling that they have no choice, no control, that the content of consciousness is innately predetermined, that they are victims of the impenetrable mystery inside their own skulls, prisoners of an unknowable enemy, helpless automatons driven by inexplicable emotions (“I can’t help it, that’s the way I am”). (pg. 29, 2nd full para down.)
17) Given her views on “the metaphysical versus the man made”, did Ayn Rand believe in the idea of “innate endowment”, i.e., the belief that some people have an inner talent or skill that they are born with?
No, she did not. (Pg. 30, first full para down)
18) What is “rewriting reality”? What are some of the examples Ayn Rand gives of “rewriting reality”? Give your own example of rewriting reality.
a) Unable to determine what they can or cannot change, some men attempt to “rewrite reality”, i.e., to alter the nature of the metaphysically given. (pg. 30, Second full para down)
b) (pg. 30, Second full para down)
c) [Group discussion]
19) At the beginning of “The Metaphysical versus The Man-Made”, Ayn Rand quotes from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
Placing this quote in a rational context, what does Ayn Rand regard as “accepting the things I cannot change”? What does Ayn Rand say the part “to change the things I can” means? What does Ayn Rand regard as “knowing the difference”? With regard to man, what does “to accept” mean and what does “to change” mean?
a) In regard to nature, ‘to accept what I cannot change’ means to accept the metaphysically given. (pg. 32, First full para down)
b) “To change the things I can” means to strive to rearrange the given by acquiring knowledge –as science and technology (e.g., medicine) are doing. (pg. 32, First full para down)
c) “Knowing the difference” means to know that one cannot rebel against nature, and, when no action is possible, one must accept nature serenely. (pg. 32, First full para down)
d) “In regard to man, “to accept” does not mean to agree, and “to change” does not mean to force. What one must accept is the fact that the minds of other men are not in one’s power, as one’s own mind is not in theirs; one must accept their right to make their own choices, and one must agree or disagree, accept or reject, join or oppose them, as one’s mind dictates. The only means of “changing” men is the same as the means of “changing” nature: knowledge –which, in regard to men, is to be used as a process of persuasion, when and if their minds are active; when they are not, one must leave them to the consequences of their own errors. “To know the difference” means that one must never accept man-made evils (there are no others) in silent resignation, one must never submit to them voluntarily –and even if one is imprisoned in some ghastly dictatorship’s jail, where no action is possible, serenity comes from the knowledge that one does not accept it.” (pg. 32, Second full para down)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment