Part 30 (1/2)
On the nominalist view, the process of defining a concept is a process of cutting the concept off from its referents, and of systematically evading what one knows about their characteristics. Definition, the very tool which is designed to promote conceptual integration, becomes an agent of its destruction, a means of disintegration.
[Ibid., 140.]
See also ABSTRACTIONS and CONCRETES; a.n.a.lYTlC-SYNTHETIC DICHOTOMY; ARBITRARY; CONCEPT-FORMATION; CONCEPTS; INTEGRATION (MENTAL); LANGUAGE; LINGUISTIC a.n.a.lYSIS; LOGICAL POSITIVISM; MEANING (of CONCEPTS); MYSTICISM; SKEPTICISM; WORDS.
Non-Contradiction. See Contradictions.
Non-Existence. Non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact, it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relations.h.i.+p, i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist. (One can arrive at the concept ”absence” starting from the concept ”presence,” in regard to some particular existent(s); one cannot arrive at the concept ”presence” starting from the concept ”absence,” with the absence including everything.) Non-existence as such is a zero with no sequence of numbers to follow it, it is the nothing, the total blank.
[ITOE, 77.].
Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not ”the absence of pain,” intelligence is not ”the absence of stupidity,” light is not ”the absence of darkness,” an ent.i.ty is not ”the absence of a nonent.i.ty.” Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolis.h.i.+ng.... Existence is not a negation of negatives.
[GS, FNI, 166; pb 135.]
See also EXISTENCE; ZERO, REIFICATION of.
Normative Abstractions. There are many special or ”cross-filed” chains of abstractions (of interconnected concepts) in man's mind. Cognitive abstractions are the fundamental chain, on which all the others depend. Such chains are mental integrations, serving a special purpose and formed accordingly by a special criterion. Cognitive abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is essential? (epistemologically essential to distinguish one cla.s.s of existents from all others). Normative abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is good?
[”Art and Sense of Life,” RM, 45; pb 36.]
Consider the long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality.
Yet this is the simpler part of his psycho-epistemological task. There is another part which is still more complex.
The other part consists of applying his knowledge-i.e., evaluating the facts of reality, choosing his goals and guiding his actions accordingly. To do that, man needs another chain of concepts, derived from and dependent on the first, yet separate and, in a sense, more complex: a chain of normative abstractions.
While cognitive abstractions identify the facts of reality, normative abstractions evaluate the facts, thus prescribing a choice of values and a course of action. Cognitive abstractions deal with that which is; normative abstractions deal with that which ought to be (in the realms open to man's choice).
[”The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” RM, 20; pb 18.]
The process of a child's development consists of acquiring knowledge, which requires the development of his capacity to grasp and deal with an ever-widening range of abstractions. This involves the growth of two interrelated but different chains of abstractions, two hierarchical structures of concepts, which should be integrated, but seldom are: the cognitive and the normative. The first deals with knowledge of the facts of reality-the second, with the evaluation of these facts. The first forms the epistemological foundation of science-the second, of morality and of art.
In today's culture, the development of a child's cognitive abstractions is a.s.sisted to some minimal extent, even if ineptly, half-heartedly, with many hampering, crippling obstacles (such as anti-rational doctrines and influences which, today, are growing worse). But the development of a child's normative abstractions is not merely left unaided, it is all but stifled and destroyed. The child whose valuing capacity survives the moral barbarism of his upbringing has to find his own way to preserve and develop his sense of values.
[”Art and Moral Treason,” RM, 140; pb 145.]
See also ABSTRACTION (PROCESS of); ABSTRACTIONS and CONCRETES; CONCEPT-FORMATION; CONCEPTS; GOOD, the; LEARNING; MORALITY; VALUES.
Novel. A novel is a long, fictional story about human beings and the events of their lives. The four essential attributes of a novel are: Theme -Pot-Characterization-Style.
These are attributes, not separable parts. They can be isolated conceptually for purposes of study, but one must always remember that they are interrelated and that a novel is their sum. (If it is a good novel, it is an indivisible sum.)...
A novel is the major literary form-in respect to its scope, its inexhaustible potentiality, its almost unlimited freedom (including the freedom from physical limitations of the kind that restrict a stage play) and, most importantly, in respect to the fact that a novel is a purely literary form of art which does not require the intermediary of the performing arts to achieve its ultimate effect.
[”Basic Principles of Literature,” RM, 57; pb 80.]
A good novel is an indivisible sum: every scene, sequence and pa.s.sage of a good novel has to involve, contribute to and advance all three of its major attributes: theme, plot, characterization.
[Ibid., 74; pb 93.]
Since the theme of a novel is an idea about or pertaining to human existence, it is in terms of its effects on or expression in human actions that that idea has to be presented.
This leads to the crucial attribute of a novel-the plot....
To present a story in terms of action means: to present it in terms of events. A story in which nothing happens is not a story. A story whose events are haphazard and accidental is either an inept conglomeration or, at best. a chronicle. a memoir, a reportorial recording, not a novel.
[Ibid., 59; pb 82.]
See also ART; CHARACTERIZATION; LITERATURE; PLOT; POPULAR LITERATURE; STYLE; THEME (LITERARY); THRILLERS.
Numbers. A ”number” is a mental symbol that integrates units into a single larger unit (or subdivides a unit into fractions) with reference to the basic number of ”one,” which is the basic mental symbol of ”unit.” Thus ”5” stands for
. (Metaphysically, the referents of ”5” are any five existents of a specified kind; epistemologically, they are represented by a single symbol.) [ITOE. 84.].
See also CONCEPTS; MATHEMATICS; MEASUREMENT; UNIT; UNIT-ECONOMY.
O.
Objective. See Objectivity.
Objective Theory of Values. The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality.
The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of ”things in themselves” nor of man's emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man-and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or ”concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of ”value” from ”purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man's actions from reason.
[”What Is Capitalism?” CUI, 22.]
The objective theory of values is the only moral theory incompatible with rule by force. Capitalism is the only system based implicitly on an objective theory of values-and the historic tragedy is that this has never been made explicit.
If one knows that the good is objective-i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind-one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man's judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one's mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of a man's life, needs, goals, and knowledge.
[Ibid., 23.]
The free market represents the social application of an objective theory of values. Since values are to be discovered by man's mind, men must be free to discover them-to think, to study, to translate their knowledge into physical form, to offer their products for trade, to judge them, and to choose, be it material goods or ideas, a loaf of bread or a philosophical treatise. Since values are established contextually, every man must judge for himself, in the context of his own knowledge, goals, and interests. Since values are determined by the nature of reality, it is reality that serves as men's ultimate arbiter: if a man's judgment is right, the rewards are his; if it is wrong, he is his only victim.
[Ibid.. 24.]
See also CAPITALISM; CONTEXT-DROPPING; FREE MARKET; INTRINSIC THEORY of VALUES; MARKET VALUE; MYSTICAL ETHICS; OBJECTIVITY; PHYSICAL FORCE; REASON; SOCIAL THEORY of ETHICS; ”STOLEN CONCEPT,” FALLACY of; SUBJECTIVISM (IN ETHICS); VALUES.
Objectivism. The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism.
[”Preface,” FNI, ii, pb viii.]
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his n.o.blest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
[”About the Author,” Appendix to Atlas Shrugged.]
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did. as follows: 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality 2. Epistemology: Reason 3. Ethics: Self-interest 4. Politics: Capitalism If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. ”Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or ”Wis.h.i.+ng won't make it so.” 2. ”You can't eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. ”Man is an end in himself.” 4. ”Give me liberty or give me death.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency-to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them-requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot-nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
In the s.p.a.ce of a column, I can give only the briefest summary of my position, as a frame-of-reference for all my future columns. My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute-facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.