Part 25 (1/2)
[Ibid.]
See also BUSINESSMEN; CAREER.
Market Value. It is in regard to a free market that the distinction between an intrinsic, subjective, and objective view of values is particularly important to understand. The market value of a product is not an intrinsic value, not a ”value in itself” hanging in a vacuum. A free market never loses sight of the question: Of value to whom? And, within the broad field of objectivity, the market value of a product does not reflect its philosophically objective value, but only its socially objective value.
By ”philosophically objective,” I mean a value estimated from the standpoint of the best possible to man, i.e., by the criterion of the most rational mind possessing the greatest knowledge, in a given category, in a given period, and in a defined context (nothing can be estimated in an undefined context). For instance, it can be rationally proved that the airplane is objectively of immeasurably greater value to man (to man at his best) than the bicycle-and that the works of Victor Hugo are objectively of immeasurably greater value than true-confession magazines. But if a given man's intellectual potential can barely manage to enjoy true confessions, there is no reason why his meager earnings, the product of his effort, should be spent on books he cannot read-or on subsidizing the airplane industry, if his own transportation needs do not extend beyond the range of a bicycle. (Nor is there any reason why the rest of mankind should be held down to the level of his literary taste, his engineering capacity, and his income. Values are not determined by fiat nor by majority vote.) Just as the number of its adherents is not a proof of an idea's truth or falsehood, of an art work's merit or demerit, of a product's efficacy or inefficacy-so the free-market value of goods or services does not necessarily represent their philosophically objective value, but only their socially objective value, i.e., the sum of the individual judgments of all the men involved in trade at a given time, the sum of what they valued, each in the context of his own life.
Thus, a manufacturer of lipstick may well make a greater fortune than a manufacturer of microscopes-even though it can be rationally demonstrated that microscopes are scientifically more valuable than lipstick. But-valuable to whom?
A microscope is of no value to a little stenographer struggling to make a living; a lipstick is; a lipstick, to her, may mean the difference between self-confidence and self-doubt, between glamour and drudgery.
This does not mean, however, that the values ruling a free market are subjective. If the stenographer spends all her money on cosmetics and has none left to pay for the use of a microscope (for a visit to the doctor) when she needs it, she learns a better method of budgeting her income; the free market serves as her teacher: she has no way to penalize others for her mistakes. If she budgets rationally, the microscope is always available to serve her own specific needs and no more, as far as she is concerned: she is not taxed to support an entire hospital, a research laboratory, or a s.p.a.ce s.h.i.+p's journey to the moon. Within her own productive power, she does pay a part of the cost of scientific achievements, when and as she needs them.
[”What Is Capitalism?” CUI, 24.]
Within every category of goods and services offered on a free market, it is the purveyor of the best product at the cheapest price who wins the greatest financial rewards in that field-not automatically nor immediately nor by fiat, but by virtue of the free market, which teaches every partic.i.p.ant to look for the objective best within the category of his own competence, and penalizes those who act on irrational considerations.
[Ibid., 25.]
The ”philosophically objective” value of a new product serves as the teacher for those who are willing to exercise their rational faculty, each to the extent of his ability. Those who are unwilling remain unrewarded -as well as those who aspire to more than their ability produces....
A given product may not be appreciated at once, particularly if it is too radical an innovation; but, barring irrelevant accidents, it wins in the long run. It is in this sense that the free market is not ruled bv the intellectual criteria of the majority, which prevail only at and for any given moment; the free market is ruled by those who are able to see and plan long-range-and the better the mind, the longer the range.
The economic value of a man's work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return.
[Ibid., 26.]
[An] objection is usually expressed by a question such as: ”Why should Elvis Presley make more money than Einstein?” The answer is: Because men work in order to support and enjoy their own lives-and if many men find value in Elvis Presley, they are ent.i.tled to spend their money on their own pleasure. Presley's fortune is not taken from those who do not care for his work (I am one of them) nor from Einstein-nor does he stand in Einstein's way-nor does Einstein lack proper recognition and support in a free society, on an appropriate intellectual level.
[Ibid., 27.]
See also CAPITALISM; COMPEt.i.tION; FREE MARKET; MONEY; PURCHASING POWER; TRADER PRINCIPLE.
Marriage. I consider marriage a very important inst.i.tution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives-a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relations.h.i.+p based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relations.h.i.+p seriously and that it is based on values.
[”Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, 8.]
See also LOVE; s.e.x.
Materials, Concepts of. Concepts of materials are formed by observing the differences in the const.i.tuent materials of ent.i.ties. (Materials exist only in the form of specific ent.i.ties, such as a nugget of gold, a plank of wood, a drop or an ocean of water.) The concept of ”gold,” for instance, is formed by isolating gold objects from all others, then abstracting and retaining the material, the gold, and omitting the measurements of the objects (or of the alloys) in which gold may exist. Thus, the material is the same in all the concrete instances subsumed under the concept, and differs only in quant.i.ty.
[ITOE. 19.].
See also CONCEPT-FORMATION; CONCEPT; MATTER.
Mathematics. Mathematics is a science of method (the science of measurement, i.e., of establis.h.i.+ng quant.i.tative relations.h.i.+ps), a cognitive method that enables man to perform an unlimited series of integrations. Mathematics indicates the pattern of the cognitive role of concepts and the psycho-epistemological need they fulfill.
[ITOE, 85.].
With the grasp of the (implicit) concept ”unit,” man reaches the conceptual level of cognition which consists of two interrelated fields: the conceptual and the mathematical. The process of concept-formation is, in large part, a mathematical process.
[Ibid., 8.]
A vast part of higher mathematics, from geometry on up, is devoted to the task of discovering methods by which various shapes can be measured-complex methods which consist of reducing the problem to the terms of a simple, primitive method, the only one available to man in this field: linear measurement. (Integral calculus, used to measure the area of circles, is just one example.) In this respect, concept-formation and applied mathematics have a similar task, just as philosophical epistemology and theoretical mathematics have a similar goal: the goal and task of bringing the universe within the range of man's knowledge-by identifying relations.h.i.+ps to perceptual data.
[lbid., 17.]
See also EPISTEMOLOGY; MEASUREMENT; METHOD, CONCEPTS of; NUMBERS; PSYCHO-EPISTEMOLOGY; SCIENCE; UNIT; UNIT-ECONOMY.
Matter. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist.
[GS, FNI, 147; pb 121.]
The day when [one] grasps that matter has no volition is the day when he grasps that he has-and this is his birth as a human being.
[Ibid., 194; pb 156.]
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic const.i.tuent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Ident.i.ty. 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-are caused and determined by the ident.i.ties of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given-i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.
[”The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” PWNI, 30; pb 25.]
See also EXISTENCE; FREE WILL; LIFE; MATERIALS, CONCEPTS of; UNIVERSE.
”McCarthyism.” In the late 1940's, another newly coined term was shot into our cultural arteries: ”McCarthyism.” Again, it was a derogatory term, suggesting some insidious evil, and without any clear definition. Its alleged meaning was: ”Unjust accusations, persecutions, and character a.s.sa.s.sinations of innocent victims.” Its real meaning was: ”Anti-communism.”
Senator McCarthy was never proved guilty of those allegations, but the effect of that term was to intimidate and silence public discussions. Any uncompromising denunciation of communism or communists was -and still is-smeared as ”McCarthyism.” As a consequence, opposition to and exposes of communist penetration have all but vanished from our intellectual scene. (I must mention that I am not an admirer of Senator McCarthy, but not for the reasons implied in that smear.) [” 'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing,” CUI, 176.]
See also ”ANTI-CONCEPTS”; COMMUNISM; SOVIET RUSSIA.
Meaning (of Concepts). A word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units.
[ITOE, 52.].
A widespread error, in this context, holds that the wider the concept, the less its cognitive content-on the ground that its distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic is more generalized than the distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristics of its const.i.tuent concepts. The error lies in a.s.suming that a concept consists of nothing but its distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic. But the fact is that in the process of abstracting from abstractions, one cannot know what is a distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic unless one has observed other characteristics of the units involved and of the existents from which they are differentiated.
Just as the concept ”man” does not consist merely of ”rational faculty” (if it did, the two would be equivalent and interchangeable, which they are not), but includes all the characteristics of ”man,” with ”rational faculty” serving as the distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic-so, in the case of wider concepts, the concept ”animal” does not consist merely of ”consciousness and locomotion,” but subsumes all the characteristics of all the animal species, with ”consciousness and locomotion” serving as the distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic.
[Ibid., 34.]
To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality.
When in doubt about the meaning or the definition of a concept, the best method of clarification is to look for its referents-i.e., to ask oneself: What fact or facts of reality gave rise to this concept? What distinguishes it from all other concepts?
For instance: what fact of reality gave rise to the concept ”justice”? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the facts of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn't this a description of ”objectivity”? Yes, ”objective judgment” is one of the wider categories to which the concept ”justice” belongs. What distinguishes ”justice” from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide an objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man's character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is ”justice.”
[Ibid., 67.]
Since a word is a symbol for a concept, it has no meaning apart from the content of the concept it symbolizes. And since a concept is an integration of units, it has no content or meaning apart from its units.
The meaning of a concept consists of the units-the existents-which it integrates, including all the characteristics of these units.