[elfman2]

betty boop, you have some interesting concerns. Let me to address as much as I can …

First, I’m blown away that you’d actually read “The Monist/Reductionist Fallacy”. It shows an uncommon degree of courage.

I think that the term “reductive” was used to describe the supposed alternative to idealism as materialism rather than naturalism. That eliminates all energies, forces, dimensions and transitions between them and matter (both known and unknown) so that a supernatural force becomes a more compelling necessity for consciousness. I think that’s why he points to reductionism by theists (not to be confused with atheistic deconstructionists).

I’m no authority regarding faith. My understanding of the Christian view in short is that it is what is necessary after reason has been exhausted and a choice of direction must still be made. Assuming that’s accurate enough for this discussion, I think Rand believed that religions promote a premature arrival at that conclusion, and she clearly didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt as to why.

Regarding Rand’s divergence from Aristotle on form and identification, that may be the most revolutionary (yet simple) concept in Objectivism, that “forms” or patterns exist and we simply identify them and create concepts of those patterns. It was ridiculously simple (A = A) but infinitely controversial because it eliminated the need for divine guidance in either Aristotle’s form conceptualization or Plato’s form creation. It eliminated previously well reasoned arguments that forms were impossible without the divine. I don’t know whether it was the profound implications of that or just Rand’s blatantly confrontational personality that made her such a target, but the whole thing certainly snowballed.

I’m not aware of Rand’s reliance on Aristotle as some kind of “ventriloquist dummy”. If nothing else can be said about her, she took ownership of her own words rather than relaying on authority. She claimed Aristotle’s most profound achievement was defining an independent objective reality (denying Plato’s world of forms, a “shadow projection controlled by a divine dimension” as she said).

“Let us note… the radical difference between Aristotle’s view of concepts and the Objectivist view, particularly in regard to the issue of essential characteristics.

It is Aristotle who first formulated the principles of correct definition. It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist. But Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical “essences”, which exist “in” concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man’s mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.

Aristotle regarded “essence” as a metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological.” [ITOE, 68]

She called Aristotle “the father of logic”, the “philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders”. But just as our understanding of what makes up the “essence” of an object has progressed, she didn’t consider his work to be the end of the road in how we identify that essence. In line with Lewis’s thinking, we can still appreciate and “receive” Aristotle’s description of form as a historical achievement. But I think it would be absurd to believe it following our understanding of molecular structure.

FWIW, We probably hold similar opinions of Libertarians. And technically, I’m probably not an Objectivist either. Like anyone, Rand made mistakes, just a lot fewer than myself unfortunately.

BTW, I think that people in all ideologies take way too many pot shots at one another. I resist the urge to join the “us vs. them” mentality until someone starts throwing more than insults.

Good talking with you BB, but this takes more time than I’ll likely be able to continue.

[betty boop]

I think that the term “reductive” was used to describe the supposed alternative to idealism as materialism rather than naturalism. That eliminates all energies, forces, dimensions and transitions between them and matter (both known and unknown) so that a supernatural force becomes a more compelling necessity for consciousness. I think that’s why he points to reductionism by theists.

But this entire set-up seems so strange to me. For the "supposed alternative" to idealism would be neither materialism nor naturalism — which are both severe reductions of nature in doctrinal form — but realism.

Just to clarify terms, materialism is the doctrine that all things in the universe ultimately reduce to "matter in its motions" according to the physical laws, in a directionless or non-purposeful process. Naturalism simply states that all natural objects must have natural causes exclusively.

I don't think Piekoff or Rand disagree with naturalism. For both seemed preoccupied with that they called the "supernatural," and held it in contempt. Indeed, it is the reason, I suspect, they hold Christians in contempt, for believing in "supernatural" (and thus fictitious on their view) things. These Christians, therefore, must be irrational people! From this they derive that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, and that only reason can be trusted. They deny on a priori grounds that religious belief could ever be "reasonable." At best, they allow it to be a palliative for the existential angst of morons.

Sigh.... I see I'm grinding my ax again. Sorry, elfman2!

To get back on-track, let's look at idealism and realism. Both are tough to define because even philosophers do not all agree on what they refer to. The dictionary defines idealism as "the theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas." The philosophers Kant and Hegel are often classified as idealists.

The dictionary defines realism as "the doctrine that universal principles are more real than objects as sensed.... names somehow denote the essences of things or categories of things." By this definition, Plato would be a realist — although many people classify Plato as an idealist (Rand does).

Neither idealism nor realism gives priority to sense perception, a key ingredient of the scientific method. Realism suggests that objects exist independently of our observation or thoughts about them. They are what they are according to their organizational principle, which is immaterial and superior to them. Idealism suggests that objects are the reification of ideas, that is, of thoughts. Thus the world and all its contents is (somehow) the manifestation of Thought. In both cases we are speaking of systems of causation with immaterial, non-"natural" sources.

So I think it's safe to say that neither Rand nor Piekoff was either an idealist or a realist. It seems their ideas correspond to naturalism.

I don't understand the statement that materialism "eliminates all energies, forces, dimensions and transitions between them [Christians???] and matter (both known and unknown) so that a supernatural force becomes a more compelling necessity for consciousness." Christians, like all other human beings, and indeed all existents in nature, have physical bodies composed of matter. Matter operates with "energies, forces, dimensions and transitions"; the activities of matter are constantly going on in our physical bodies all the time, and at astronomical rates. Christians are not freaked out by such facts regarding the body. What probably separates a Christian from a Randian, however, is that where a Christian would say, "I have a body," the Randian would say, "I am my body." [Looks to me like the "reductionism" here is coming from the Randian side.]

But since there is no known natural source for human consciousness, it is unreasonable to expect that consciousness, and especially self-consciousness, arises from material, bodily states — unreasonable on the basis of the total lack of evidence to support such a view. If the cause or source of consciousness is not "material," as it appears, then consciousness, mind, thinking, reason, etc., are not subject to the laws that govern matter. They are "supra"-natural; or even "super"-natural in this sense.

In short, Christians are committed to the idea that the human person is an ensouled body. (They weren't the first to think this, BTW. The classical philosophers and Jewish scholars thought this, too.) The body is finite and perishes; the soul (mind, consciousness, spirit, heart) is infinite, immortal and imperishable. Science can corroborate that the body is, indeed, finite. But it has no method for addressing the phenomenon of soul — because soul is intangible, non-material, and completely nonsusceptible to direct observation.

Anyhoot, it seems to me that Christians not only do not try to "reduce" the world to make it fit their comfort zone, rather they do the very opposite. I think Rand and Piekoff have constructed a "strawman" on which to beat. I can't for the life of me figure out why they would want to do that.

Thank you so very much, elfman2, for the interesting discussion!