Knowledge by Trial and a Review of Objectivism

I read Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead many years ago but definitely did not understand the philosophy.  Now, while I read Atlas Shrugged, which is especially relevant in the current economic situation, I have a much better understanding of the Objectivist philosophy – but certainly not enough to defend it in a rigorous philosophical debate, I could probably do it at a cocktail party, though.  700 pages into the book and I am drawn to the Objectivist philosophy because I believe in the idea of “Relative Value” and “Selfishness.”  These are concepts that were hammered into me while studying Free Market Economics at University of Chicago.

 

As a good University of Chicago student, though, I am always looking for a flaw in the argument.  I keep getting the gnawing feeling during certain scenes that there are contradictions and false premises but am just not smart enough or perceptive enough to articulate them . . . yet.  “Check your premises” is what Francisco d’Anconia (one of the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged) always says. 

 

So l searched for critiques of Objectivism and was directed towards Greg Nyquist.  I have only read his introduction and a few portions of his blog and I have to say that it is really tough to find an easy simple summary of his critique.  In what I have read of his work, I keep seeing the same type of “verbal web” that he criticizes Rand for – i.e. complicated ideas with long words that I need to keep consulting a dictionary for.  There are many large terms – metaphysics, epistemology, etc. which I do not understand.  Maybe the lesson is that I cannot look for the absolute right or wrong answer, just the RELATIVE inconsistencies in both Author’s arguments – that is a pure Objectivist philosophy though!  Regardless I will finish the book and also read Nyquist’s critique in full to get a better understanding. 

 

Part of the introduction of his book is online and in a base criticism of Rand’s “verbalism” he says the following – which I agree with fully:

“Knowledge comes, not from words, but from experience. The knowledge of any complex skill, whether it is cooking, judging the motives of other people, or writing a novel, can only be learned from immersing oneself in the activity from which the knowledge springs. To learn how to cook, you go into the kitchen; to learn how to judge the motives of other people, you begin by sharply observing those around you; to learn how to write a novel, you read other novels and attempt to write some of your own. Of course, learning in this way is difficult and time-consuming. Hence the appeal of philosophers who, like Rand, declare that knowledge comes from words. It is very flattering to think that, once one masters the vocabulary of a given subject, one has mastered the subject itself. Yet it should be obvious to anyone who has given the matter serious thought that, just because you are familiar with, say, the general concepts of cooking, this does not mean that you know how to cook. Knowledge of cooking must derive, not from the terms in which cooking is described, but from cooking itself”

To gain knowledge you have to participate and experiment in the physical activity itself.  Time for me to get crackin’ . . . .