Ayn Rand the Sociologist

[David McDivitt]

On 3/20/2011 11:05 PM, Carmen Clark wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:40 PM, David McDivitt wrote:
>
>> The appearance of authority is always enticing to those who
>> seek authority, but there is none except what we make up ourselves.
>
> This is a very important idea, IMO, and troubling to a "realist" or
> "objectivist," it would seem.
>
> The last part "but there is none..." I assume to mean, "but there is
> no authority except what we imagine or assign/concede to others from
> within ourselves."
>
>
> -c
>
> "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."
> — Anaïs Nin
> _______________________________________________
> nonserviam mailing list
> nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
> http://mailman.gramstad.no/mailman/listinfo/nonserviam

The most significant debate historically is the one between rationalism 
and empiricism. Things changed significantly when empiricism won, but 
not immediately. Rationalism retained its place in language as "what is 
moral", i.e. right thinking, saying what is authorized, using sanctioned 
approved knowledge. Knowledge remains in a state of transition, still 
moving from rationalism to empiricism.

If there is physical law, why does it work? Does anyone ever ask that? 
What magic causes things to do what they're supposed to do, as if 
obedience to law? The idea is left over from medieval times when 
"objects" were discrete "things" having their own sense of obedience to 
god. Also, "objective" reality is the proper annunciation of what things 
are known (sanctioned, approved, authorized) to be, with reality of 
course being the same realism/rationalism, or everything being what it 
should be. Moralism was everything. Men of course controlled moralism. 
Possibly being so carried away with themselves they didn't know this. 
Plato for instance was not aware he simply made everything up, but 
believed in a prime mover god, and thought he himself was privy to 
information about heavenly templates, etc. People who came after him 
followed the same intellectual precedent. But empiricism and the 
Scientific Method changed this way of thinking.

So again, if physical law, why? By what magic? I think Descartes was an 
excellent salesman. He provided an explanation whereby the church could 
retain authority, though that authority would steadily dissipate from 
then on, and he was able to usher in new cause-and-effect thinking and a 
mechanical universe. He said god still has authority but not in the 
active sense any longer. This effectively killed the word of god, 
because prior to Descartes, people believed god gave an infinite number 
of incessant commands, in real time, causing everything to do whatever 
they did. Saying god simply set everything in motion and no longer 
played an active part, was an excellent solution! It was a hard pill for 
the church to swallow but some semblance of godly authority, hence papal 
authority, was retained.

The problem with realism is that it is deism. It takes Descartes' answer 
and stops. No more questions. The fact materialistic atheists try and 
remove the idea of god doesn't change anything. There's still an 
obedient universe. Obedient to what? To whom?

The best answer is to let empirical thought completely run its course to 
the extent all a priori (circular) reasoning is removed. The latest 
understanding is in the form of quantum physics and probability. Nothing 
has to do anything. There is no law being followed. Cause and effect, 
therefore, are our own logical models, whereby our predictions and 
forecasts are highly accurate. We're intelligent, we're able to say what 
will probably happen based on past observations (empiricism), and we do 
that so well we can even begin constructing machines and other 
technology that behave as we anticipate. Again, there is no law. There 
is no obedience. There is only our excellent sense of observation and 
adaptation to what we observe.

Without law there is no authority. There is no purpose save what we 
specify. There is no significance save what we deem significant. We 
build significance on top of significance and idea on top of idea, 
entirely constructing the world we have. Each time I fall back to think 
something is real, always, without exception, I am able to reduce that 
realness to social constructs and evolved significance.

To answer the question, when I say there is no authority, there is none, 
period, and realism, being based on the idea of authority, is no longer 
sufficiently descriptive.

-- 
yes, I dare to be subjective!