To those who have read things I posted months ago, this will be nothing new. I will mostly be repeating myself. When I say something new, it will mostly be connecting the dots. Another thing to note is that I don’t care what others before me thought of objectivism, or what their version of objectivism was. A name that is frequently associated with objectivism is Ayn Rand. I’m not interested in her, never read a word of hers, I’m not willing to defend her positions, don’t give a shit. If you want to attack my positions, attack MY positions as you read them in this thread or another thread where I posted. Don’t pull strawmen out of your anuses and then claim you’re attacking me.
I do not claim to represent the views of anybody else but me.
These are the foundations of objectivism as I understand it. They are still in their initial stages of development (wrote all of this today) and there is plenty more to be said about it, many specifics and details to be worked out. As a general determination I’d say my objectivism is based on an empirical, scientific understanding of nature as opposed to being based on things like religious beliefs, human social constructs, etc. If somebody is so hellbent on comparing my version of objectivism with some other, you can refer to my objectivism as naturalistic objectivism, or refer to the other objectivism differently to distinguish it.
Lastly before I begin, please pardon my poor writing style and try to focus more on substance than style. Thank you.
The foundations for Objectivism
a) The foundational/first objective.
First I will point out that no human is magically obliged by some kind of deity or anything, to pursue some goal (an objective). The choosing of a goal (objective) itself, or choosing to have no goal, has no objective basis in the sense that there are no objectively verifiable “oughts” that can be concluded logically, as Hume noted. An Ought cannot be concluded from an Is.
When we say something is objective-ly correct/true, we are saying that something is true, possibly even an ought statement, in relation to some goal/objective. For example, if I say that I love big cats more than small cats, then it is an objective-ly (in relation to my goal, objective) superior course of action for me to buy a Maine Coon Cat instead of some smaller subspecies of cats. In relation to this objective of acquiring a big cat, the statement “you ought to buy Maine Coons then instead of >insert smaller species of cats here<” is objectively true, meaning, in relation to my objective independently of what anybody else’s preferences are. This is how objectives can dictate what is a superior and inferior course of action. However, this objective of buying big cats may only be objectively superior to me, but it is not universal - it does not apply to all humans.
But is there some objective that all humans necessarily share?
The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL. There are 2 types of survival:
- short-term survival - what we usually mean by survival, survival of your particular organism,
- long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring.
Short-term survival is pointless without long-term survival, and long-term survival is impossible without first surviving in the short-term.
If you choose any objective, that objective implies your survival because without survival you can not choose objectives, you can not act, and you cannot accomplish anything. You can indeed choose not to survive, but if you were truly consistent with that choice, you wouldn’t be reading this, you would have killed yourself and you would be dead. Survival is necessarily the first priority (first objective) of all living organisms. Anything that doesn’t consider it a first priority is a deviation from natural selection, and it will by definition be corrected because, all other factors equal, its chances of survival are lower than of an identical organism which DOES consider survival a first objective and a highest priority. All other objectives one might have can thus be judged according to how they contribute to accomplishing this first objective of survival. The only thing that survival can be sacrificed for without being filtered out by natural selection is another type of survival, and even then it only makes sense to sacrifice short-term for long-term (dying to save your kids), while sacrificing your kids to save yourself makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it by definition gets filtered out simply because people who have that kind of mindset tend to have fewer surviving offspring who would pass it on.
So, although an ought cannot be concluded from an is, and although the choosing of survival as the first objective is based on a subjective (subjective in the sense that it is a consequence of the nature of a subject in question) preference of a subject to be alive instead of dead, it IS something that is universal among all of us living beings. Since it is an universal objective (goal) for all of us living beings to survive, to continue living, it can be universally and objectively determined in relation to that objective what is the best course of action one can take to accomplish that first objective of being alive and surviving.
b) Survival and the objective world
The objective world is a filtering mechanism, and to survive means to bypass and overcome this filtering mechanism, to not get filtered out by it. This filtering mechanism we also call natural selection. Everything that is alive, as well as groups consisting of living individuals, are ultimately tested against the objective world for survival (objective world, meaning, not some imaginary world, but the world we all inhabit that exists regardless of humans). How much of the objective world an organism (or a group) can perceive, and how effectively it can act, is thus of crucial importance. And no, society/technology doesn’t magically make this mechanism of natural selection go away. It is true that in societies individuals can escape the consequences of their own actions. But that only means the consequences and effects are transferred to society, they don’t disappear (that will be explained later in the post). As for technologies, the natural processes of evolution didn’t stop when primates learned to use the environment to their advantage, be it chimpanzees using sticks to get bananas or humans using more advanced technologies. Technologies and society are still restricted at the level of biology both, by human nature (limitations of human imagination) as well as evolution (natural selection), and at the level of physics by natural laws. Human societies and technology have to work within those confines, they don’t magically transcend them.
All organisms/groups of organisms are first tested for survival by their most immediate environment, and so they receive consequences (which is feedback from the objective world) from that most immediate environment. For most individuals, that is a human society. Then this human society, which is a group of organisms/individuals is tested against the natural environment, which includes other societies, with which one can either wage war or try to ally with and cooperate. The natural environment also includes other animal species which are excluded from human society (wildlife), as well as natural processes detrimental to the well-being of human organisms (the elements).
If you get lost in nature, you are tested against the natural world directly without the society intervening to save you from the consequences of your choices. This is why it is so traumatizing for people to get lost in nature after having been adapted their whole lives to the comfortable, sheltering confines of a society. So for the sake of protecting the physical well being and psychological sanity of its inhabitants, societies often tend to insulate themselves from the natural world and purge all traces of nature from themselves - more specifically, they tend to LIE about nature or DENY it altogether, at least in words, because the very existence of society rests on at least a part of society dealing with nature to some extent. But societies (human constructed environments) are also subject to the natural environment, so if they don’t recognize the natural environment and its rules, and if they don’t construct the rules of the society to align with natural rules, they will have inferior results objectively. Meaning, they will be filtered out by natural selection, most likely by being conquered by another society.
c) 2 main types of environments to survive in and the 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world
So there are two possible environments an individual can find themselves in, a natural and a human constructed, social one (which exists within the natural one). This isn’t an absolute distinction, in reality as with most things there are gradations and not all human constructed environments are equally artificial (detached from nature), some are more less natural, (modern environments with advanced technology), others are more natural (some tribes living in Amazon rainforest f.e.). This results in 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world.
- Individual organism <> Nature.
A very rare occurrence, an anomaly. Usually only happens when a person gets lost in nature. Here the person immediately faces the consequences of their choices. Here the choices one makes truly matter. Here the word games and lies can’t save him. Here his cries for help are lost to the howling of the wolves in the distance and the thick darkness surrounding him. Here, the difference between being strong or weak, smart or stupid, mean a difference between life and death. Kill or be killed. Destroy or be destroyed. Act efficiently to preserve yourself, or die. Nature doesn’t care, it is indifferent. Only the strongest and the most fit emerge victorious, and mere survival is a grand victory when it is in a natural environment.
- Individual organism <> Society <> Nature
Most of us humans don’t exist directly in the natural environment, we exist in society, which is an environment constructed and maintained by humans and for humans. In this environment the consequences of our choices are also responded to immediately, but by the society, not nature. The rules of society, unlike the rules of nature, are constructed specifically to meet human needs and facilitate group human survival by cooperation and limited competition. This makes society a safe, forgiving, comfortable environment, compared to nature (and also opens it up for exploitation by particular kind of individuals, but we’ll leave that for now). Because society consists of many other individuals, its well-being is determined by the consequences of actions of a huge collective of people. So every choice a person makes has consequences for the person, yes, but also for the society. The consequences of individual choices are in a sense redistributed to the entire society, especially in societies with socialist-leaning policies. The well-being and survival of the society thus depends on how people act collectively. If the society imposes rules that are aligned with nature, the society will be healthy and likely to survive. If it imposes rules contrary to natural ones, it is less likely to survive.
For example. The rule in nature is that only those who are prepared to have offspring get to reproduce their genes. To be prepared means to have enough resources (energy) accumulated to provide for their offspring, and that parents are around to take care of it. Having genetic offspring is a risk because infants are very need and vulnerable and require nutrition, nurture, and protection. When an organism has genetic offspring in nature and successfully raises it, it MEANS something. It means that the organism has managed to accumulate enough excess energies to feed its offspring, and that it is physically and mentally fit to protect it (deal with threats) and to nurture it. It is an indication of fitness, of being able to deal with nature. Thus the ones who reproduce their genes in nature are the most fit members of a species. Basically, making superior choices and acting in superior (effective) ways results in successful reproduction, while making inferior choices and acting in inferior (ineffective) ways results in failure and being selected out of the gene pool. The connection between choice and consequence is direct, clear, and undeniable.
This may not be so in a society. In a society, the rules can be set up so that the good, superior choices (productivity and capability) of certain members of society can benefit people who make bad, inferior choices, thus preventing them from suffering the consequences of those bad choices. For example, in a society that offers free welfare to people just for having children, a woman with a low IQ incapable/unwilling to be productive can simply get herself impregnated (usually by a low IQ man or multiple low IQ men) and receive welfare to survive. This is not aligned with the rules of nature, it is an example of a rule that is self-defeating in the long-term. Instead of rewarding productivity and competence, it rewards incompetence and non-productivity. Such a woman is parasitic because she takes away more than she gives back. And whatever traits made her be unproductive and make bad choices, will also be passed on and present in her children. Because this rule promotes parasitism it is self-defeating in the long-term, since in order to survive it is dependent upon the very kind of people (productive people) that it is exterminating by removing all incentives to be productive and providing incentives to be unproductive as well as promoting the reproduction of unproductive people. Because societies are ultimately judged by the rules of nature, introducing such anit-natural rules makes a society unfit. And once the social constructs that protect parasites are broken down because of their very parasitism, the parasites are forced to face the natural environment directly. Then natural selection would take its course and the parasites would die off.
This is why it is important not to judge things in relation to some social standard - a social standard can be pulled out of an anus, it can be anti-nature, it can be, simply, wrong because under the protection of a society and not having to directly face the natural consequences of their actions, people tend to lie and deny reality (objective world, nature). Ultimately all social rules and standards, and the kind of people who advocate for them and that they produce, are judged against the standards of nature. Nature is the ultimate judge. Unfit people may escape natural selection for a few generations, especially with all the modern technologies compensating for natural weaknesses, but nature catches up, eventually, and the longer you try to escape from it, the harder it will hit you. The more degeneracy accumulates in a society, the greater the eventual culling. Technologies can only protect and shelter weakness so far.
So, all subjective preferences and subjectively constructed opinions, and choices resulting from them are ultimately judged against the objective world/nature by its filtering mechanism (natural selection). Ultimately, these preferences lead people to make choices corresponding to these preferences, and these choices result in objectively superior or inferior outcomes, as determined by natural selection. If an individual exists within a society, then inidividual is tested against the society, and the society is then tested against nature, so the relationship between individual and nature still exists, though it is mediated by society and so the impact of inferior choices is lessened by society and usually redistributed to the entire society instead of reflected back almost directly to the individual who made the inferior choice.
Example: You may prefer to cut your legs off. That may be your “subjective preference”, based on your “subjective opinion” and “subjective understanding” of the world, and many other subjective things, or whatever. But now imagine there are 2 tribes of 100 people, equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their own legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs. On the far-fetched assumption that the self-handicapping leg cutting tribe even manages to survive on their own, what do you think would happen if the 2 tribes went to war? What happens is that natural selection takes its course, and the tribe who cut their legs off suffer the consequences of their inferior choices, and they get killed, their lands conquered, their resources plundered. This is the case of whole societies being judged against nature (objective world), where some are objectively determined to be superior, and others inferior.
And do I even need to mention what happens if you get lost in nature alone, and cut your legs off? You would likely die within hours, if not from bleeding then from infections, if not from infections then from predators, and if not from predators then from starvation/dehydration as it would be near impossible for you to acquire the necessary nutrients to survive.
Conclusion: We can objectively measure and evaluate the validity of certain subjective preferences, opinions, and choices based on their natural consequences of how well they can survive natural selection. Natural selection is the ultimate filtering mechanism of the objective world, and social selection is only valid to the extent it is based on natural selection. Certain things can objectively be proven to contribute to the survival of an individual and/or a group, and certain other things can be proven to be detrimental to it. Subjectivity tests its fitness against the objective world, and based on its performance and success in reproducing itself (dealing with the objective world) its fitness can be objectively measured and evaluated. In a social context, consequences can be avoided or postponed by transferring them to others, but if a society allows that eventually natural selection catches up and hits the society hard. There is no escaping the objective world. No escaping natural selection.