Is Reason the Only Absolute in Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism?

  • Thread starter DB
  • Start date
In summary: Whether or not "reason" is the only absolute for man, is a topic of intense debate in philosophy and cognitive psychology. So, the short answer to your original question is no.
  • #1
DB
501
0
in ayn rand's philosophy of objectivism she says that a man's only absolute is his reason. Since no man has the exact same reasoning (or intuition) would this imply that mankind's reason is relative?

and if you were an objectivist, would that mean you would also be a relativist?

thnx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
anyone?...
 
  • #3
I've never read Rand, but from talking to adherents of her ideas, it does not seem that they are relativists. Their belief seems to be that all humans, through the proper application of reason, should come to the same conclusions. As far as I can tell, her epistemology is anti-intuitionist, so the fact that men can intuit differing conclusions should not have an impact on their beliefs.

Do you have a passage of text or a synopsis? A paraphrasing of one of her arguments? There isn't much here to discuss if one hasn't already read her works, and I don't know whether she's all that popular in these parts.
 
  • #4
DB said:
in ayn rand's philosophy of objectivism she says that a man's only absolute is his reason. Since no man has the exact same reasoning (or intuition) would this imply that mankind's reason is relative?
and if you were an objectivist, would that mean you would also be a relativist?thnx
Here are a few comments on your question.
1. It is not clear that Rand ever stated that a man's only absolute is his reason--do you have a citation ? Rand spoke about many differ absolutes, for example she wrote " reality is an absolute...a speck of dust is an absolute...whether or not a man lives is an absolute"...etc. So, I would think that "reason" is not the only absolute for Rand, just one of many.
2. As to the question "is reason relative", I would think that Rand would answer no. For Rand, "reason" (e.g., the concept) is defined as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses". That is, all humans share a fundamental identity to integrate perceptions by means of forming abstractions and conceptions, all humans have the potential (or faculty) to reason, thus reason itself is not relative, it is an absolute faculty of the brains of all humans.
3. However, Rand also holds that "reason is a faculty that each man has to exercise by choice". Thinking is not an automatic function, thus in this way, perhaps one could suggest that the "process of reasoning" is "relative", that is, the quantity and quality of reasoning would differ from man to man.
 
  • #5
true, Rade.

because "reason" is implemented, utilized, in various degrees, does not mean that reason is relative. only that the utilization of "reason" is relative to varying degrees, pending on the "utilizer"

"reason" is not equally "unfolded" in all "reasoners". that is why statements can be refuted. the "stater" has not unfolded "reason" sufficiently, and therefore allows the "more exposed, 'weathered', or unfolded" reason to clarify the statement.

this may be the foundation of "wisdom". wisdom being the ultimate "unfolding" of reason. wisdom is, then, the paragon of rational thought.
 
  • #6
here's the quote i read

"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 noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. [1]"
 
  • #7
DB said:
here's the quote i read
"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 noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. [1]"
Thank you. What Rand is saying here is that "reason" as opposed to "emotion-feeling" is the only absolute way that any single human gains knowledge. This conclusion derives logically from the basic axioms of her philosophy: existence, consciousness, identity. The best summary of this thought process is found in the 1991 book by philosopher Leonard Peikoff, titled: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". The vast majority (but clearly not all) of professional philosophers since Rand first published her novels in mid 20th Century completely disagree with Rand, starting from rejection of her axioms as not in fact being axioms.
 

What is Objectivism?

Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand that emphasizes the importance of reason, individualism, and the pursuit of self-interest. It holds that there is an objective reality that can be understood and known through observation and logic. Objectivists believe in the inherent value of the individual and reject any form of collectivism.

What is Relativism?

Relativism is a philosophical perspective that holds that knowledge, truth, and morality are relative to the individual or culture. It argues that there are no absolute truths or values, and that what is considered right or wrong is determined by one's own beliefs and cultural context.

What are the main differences between Objectivism and Relativism?

The main difference between Objectivism and Relativism lies in their beliefs about the nature of reality and the role of reason. Objectivism holds that there is an objective reality and that reason is the primary means of understanding it. Relativism, on the other hand, denies the existence of an objective reality and emphasizes the role of subjective perspectives and cultural influences.

How do Objectivism and Relativism impact ethical and moral beliefs?

Objectivism and Relativism have vastly different views on ethics and morality. Objectivism believes in the objective nature of moral principles and emphasizes the pursuit of self-interest and rational self-interest. On the other hand, Relativism holds that moral beliefs are relative to the individual or culture and rejects the idea of universal moral principles.

Can Objectivism and Relativism coexist?

Objectivism and Relativism are fundamentally opposed to one another and it is unlikely that they can coexist. Objectivism holds that there is an objective reality and that reason is the only means of understanding it, while Relativism denies the existence of an objective reality and emphasizes subjective perspectives and cultural influences. These two philosophies are incompatible and cannot be reconciled.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
14K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
22K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
15
Views
1K
Back
Top