Dennis Hackethal’s Blog

My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.

Reason by Purge or by Patch?

Published · 17-minute read

Objectivism holds that reason should never collaborate or compromise with unreason. Don’t mix truth and falsehood, good and evil, rationality and irrationality:

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

Ayn Rand. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. ‘“Extremism,” or the Art of Smearing’ (p. 182), aynrandlexicon.com

Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim.

Ayn Rand. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. ‘The Cashing-In: The Student ”Rebellion”’ (p. 255), aynrandlexicon.com

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.

And, one of my favorite quotes on this topic:

What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?
Ayn Rand. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (p. 161). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Many people hold what objectivists call ‘mixed premises’: they are partly rational, partly irrational. Like the guy who tells the truth but also steals once in a while. (I have trouble even making the previous sentence coherent: I’m tempted to write that he mostly tells the truth at best, since he would have to lie about his theft, lie to storeowners about his intentions when entering their stores, etc.) Another example is people who work as scientists during the week but go to church on Sundays. Their mind is a giant hodgepodge of compromises between reason and unreason/mysticism. Ideally, these people would abandon mysticism and become completely rational.

An interviewer of Rand’s once put it this way: you can’t be a little bit pregnant. Logically, it doesn’t make any sense. There’s a difference between principles and gradual matters like hunger or sadness: you can be little hungry or a little sad. Small deviations don’t destroy the underlying concept. But you can’t be a little honest or a little rational: these concepts are very vulnerable and ‘unstable’ in that sense.

People commonly point to, say, Newton’s religiosity to claim that reason and unreason can be mixed without issue. He was a genius, after all. It may not always be their intention, but they implicitly credit his unreason for the achievements of his reason. The same thing happens when parents and educators of successful children credit coercion for the achievements of freedom – and also vice versa: people blaming reason for man’s shortcomings, like blaming economic downturns on the free market instead of the government; calling them ‘market failures’ when they are really government failures.

Due to objectivism’s zero-tolerance policy for mysticism, gradual improvement toward a less mystic state is not enough: it’s all or nothing. This all-or-nothing nature of rationality seems to require that a mind with mixed premises abandon all of its mystic premises at once. Anything else would be temporizing. Objectivism seems to require a purge of sorts. It’s better if someone steals only once a month instead of once a week, but he’s still a thief.

According to critical rationalism, however, such a sudden improvement is impossible: the mind is a knowledge-laden system; error correction must be piecemeal, evolutionary – ie, small, reversible patches that add up over time. Trying to make too drastic a change would be revolutionary. Critical rationalism says to avoid revolutions. They almost always make things worse and result in a loss of knowledge at best, violence at worst. As quoted here:

[W]e cannot start afresh; [...]. If we start afresh, then, when we die, we shall be about as far as Adam and Eve were when they died [...].

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (p. 173), google.com

(Were we to start the race where Adam started, I know of no reason why we should get any further than Adam did.)

Ibid. (p. 323)

Some people say [...] that it is their greatest wish to clean the canvas thoroughly—to create a social tabula rasa and to begin afresh by painting on it a brand new social system. But they should not be surprised if they find that once they destroy tradition, civilization disappears with it. They will find that mankind have returned to the position in which Adam and Eve began—or, using less biblical language, that they have returned to the beasts. All that these revolutionary progressivists will then be able to do is to begin the slow process of human evolution again (and so to arrive in a few thousand years perhaps at another capitalist period, which will lead them to another sweeping revolution, followed by another return to the beasts, and so on, for ever and ever). In other words, there is no earthly reason why a society whose traditional set of values has been destroyed should, of its own accord, become a better society [...].

Ibid. (p. 462 f.)

Also see this article.

Another reason changes toward rationality are necessarily gradual is that some bad ideas won’t just leave you alone voluntarily. They will plead and seduce. The harder you fight them, the more they will punish you. They are what David Deutsch would call ‘anti-rational’: they make you feel bad for questioning them. A deeply religious person can’t just become an atheist over night.

But again, objectivism would (presumably) see any merely gradual change toward rationality as just another compromise between reason and unreason: another deal with the devil.

So there seems to be a conflict between objectivism and critical rationalism. It’s a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ type of situation. You’re either a mystic or a revolutionary. Both are bad. Below, I discuss this problem with Dirk Meulenbelt and Roshan Ali.


Dennis
[T]here was quite a bit of mysticism in my home growing up.

My mom believes in astrology and reads her horoscope in weekly magazines. Like, she doesn’t think it completely determines her life but she does think it impacts her life to some non-negligible degree.

She thinks the full moon negatively impacts her sleep.

She has a horseshoe hanging above the front door for good luck.

Somehow, none of that nonsense rubbed off on me. I think I learned some methods of rationality in [but also despite] school that helped me identify it as nonsense or at least make it explicit. Sam Harris might have helped too. But I think part of me always knew. I don’t think I ever fell for any of it.

My grandmother once gifted me a framed four-leaf clover, but I think she knew the clover doesn’t magically influence my life. She saw it as a symbol of her affection. And so do I.

So it’s possible to have little trinkets of mysticism but view them in a completely rational way.

But it’s still strange that the mysticism is involved at all. Like, gifting someone a gameboy would be a completely rational counter example. (Not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth here)

Dennis
Oh that reminds me, my mom also told me my dead guinea pigs would go to heaven lol

Dirk
Yes [this is widespread in the West today and can serve as a good model for, say, non-Western muslims, so] I am quite happy for people to keep their irrationalities for that reason

Dennis
you mean to like gradually ease them into secularity?

Dirk
Yes. If you think about it, mysticism is not even slightly compatible with reason or a rational stance

I’m happy to split the difference

And there are great religious scientists like Francis Collins

So people can apparently have two sets of books

Dennis
i don’t understand. if mysticism is “not even slightly” compatible with reason (i agree), how can you be “happy” to split the difference (ie happy to try to make them compatible or at least have them coexist)

Dirk
Because then we can ease them into secularism as you say

Dennis
yes but your approach requires the (temporary) compromise you say is impossible

Dirk
people can apparently have these blind spots and operate according to reason in some domains. what i mean is that if you take the ideas of epistemology seriously, there is no room for mysticism. so an intellectual i find difficult to take seriously if they are also religious

however I've talked to and have been acquainted to some muslims, one of whom is doing a phd in biology, who said that they could never in their lives tell their parents that they do not believe in the quran

even though neither they nor their parents live anything like what that book would have you live like, if you considered it truly the word of god

so let them think that this is somehow fine, long enough to outlive the need for the mystic

if you loudly proclaim that this cannot be done, i.e. nobody could be a real intellectual or scientist, while keeping religiosity

then we'd lose a great deal of people who could never at the outset give up their religion

so then let there be piecemeal change in their thinking

my mother would be a great example. enthusiastic leftist, but can't find fault in my calm economic analysis

so i'll win her over one little crack in her worldview at a time

Dennis
i consider this an important open problem/outstanding conflict between oism and cr:

oism: no compromise between reason and mysticism is possible; the smallest amount of mysticism corrupts reason entire
cr: avoid revolutions, make piecemeal changes

oism seems to require a revolution in a mind

Dirk
i don't think people naturally extend their beliefs in one domain to another

this too is an act of creativity

virtually everyone is libertarian when it comes to personal relationships

nobody seems to argue that i need to share my girlfriend with an incel, because the poor man can't get laid

they're told to man the fuck up, get into a gym, etc

but i do have to share my money with the people who can't seem to make any, or squander it, or what have you

Dennis
to be clear, you’re giving examples showing that compromise between reason and mysticism is possible after all? because the mysticism will not automatically extend from one area to the next?

Dirk
possibly depending on what definition of compromise we're taking on

in some sort of psychosocial sense, yes

Dennis
ok but i don’t think those are examples of mysticism, just regular mistakes

Dirk
in a philosophical search for truth, of course not

there is no such thing as the world of conjecture and criticism, and then some things are 'faith'

Dennis
ah

In reply to this message
A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal.
from https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html

mysticism has no valid claim to make and no value to offer

so no compromise is possible with it

In reply to this message
thought processes often do extend across domains. methods of thought vs particular ideas. psycho epistemology

Dirk
In reply to this message
in this case, the compromise isn't possible. so then I think i was correct in saying they are incompatible

what i'm talking about is people thinking that they are compatible and kind of larping that it is

so perhaps more of a delusion that i'm happy for people to have considering the alternative, which is total delusion

Dennis
In reply to this message
eg you pointed out an inconsistency in a muslim’s lifestyle. they would need to suppress any inquiries into this inconsistency in order to keep it alive for as long as they have. which means they have dishonest thought processes that are deeply engrained and automated, which in turn means they can’t just decide to turn those off for some areas

In reply to this message
isn’t the choice between reason and mysticism, not partial mysticism and full-on mysticism

In reply to this message
if they are incompatible after all (i agree), we are back to needing a revolution inside that mind

Roshan
90% of the scientists in ISRO India’s space program are superstitious Hindus but they still manage to put stuff in space. Wouldn’t this contradict what you’re saying [Dennis]?

Dennis
no why? liars sometimes tell the truth

bad people sometimes do good things

that doesn’t make them good

Roshan
Yes but they’re turning off their superstitions when they’re working on their work problems?

Dirk
yes. that brings me to another instance i had with a muslim. she was drinking wine with me, which she thought was OK, even if she were a muslim. she was wearing a ninja hat too. then i pointed out that if she thought her religion was true, and dictated by god, wouldn't she think there isn't really some exception to the rules that she could decide on because well, wine is fine? this seemed to have created a bit of a crisis in her.

now imagine she takes me seriously, she is left with two options: drop her religion (which she cannot, psychologically, or even just practically given how muslims literally kill apostates), or take it a whole lot more seriously

for her, I am happy for her to keep up the pantomime

Dennis
In reply to this message
how do you know that. maybe they don’t turn them off, maybe they could be making far more progress if they didn’t have those superstitions at all

Roshan
In reply to this message
Fair enough

Dirk
yes i think people would be way better off without superstitions

Roshan
Or they’re making some insane reasonings which allow them to escape their superstition in some specific area

Dennis
In reply to this message
the only other option i see is gradual change. she slowly stops associating with ppl who might kill her and replaces them with ppl who wouldn’t and so on

In reply to this message
yes that compartmentalization takes effort and energy, all of which could be spent on just reason

Dirk
yes, i totally agree, but that gradual change contains a stage where she is larping muslim

also, failing to see how your worldview in one domain implies truths about other domains, is simply a mistake, that even popper himself was guilty of

Dennis
if she’s only lying to others but not herself that would be fine and rational i think, given the threat of death

Dirk
and you and i probably too

Dennis
yes mere errors of knowledge are different i think

mere errors of knowledge are not damning

but failure to understand something you SHOULD understand given the evidence available to you is

the change to larping is fine morally, i believe

it assumes a prior change in her mind (sudden or gradual, we haven’t specified)

Dirk
let's say you had a communist friend, and you wanted to talk him into free markets

you would probably try to make him agree to little facts over time

while absolutely avoiding saying that agreeing to these facts makes it impossible for him to see himself as a communist

Roshan
In reply to this message
Ah ok this is what I thought you meant wasn’t possible when you said they can’t turn it off on some areas

Dennis
In reply to this message
impossible without those “insane reasonings” you spoke of

as in: something’s gotta give

(I think you mean rationalization not reasoning)

as in: the ‘collaboration’ between reason and mysticism is always to the benefit of mysticism and at the cost of reason

Dirk
but i think we're conflating two conversations

1. Can mysticism ever provide valid criticism to our ideas -> no
2. Can people have incompatible worldviews in their minds and function just fine -> yes

3. Should we point out to people that these worldviews are incompatible -> case dependent

Dennis
i think you might be able to discuss methodology in the abstract with people, ie without touching on anything they might find controversial

then apply the methodology they agreed to, to the topic they find controversial

but they will still heavily resist, hold it against you etc [if you reach a conclusion they don’t like]

they will try to rationalize the methodology away after all

Dirk
in the netherlands we have our version of santa claus, or rather its predecessor. he walks over the roofs with his horse, and then black pete goes through chimneys to drop presents in shoes of kids.

when i was about 5 or 6 i thought about it and figured that horses cannot walk over our roofs, because they are not flat, and also, the chimney just isn't wide enough for a person.

I concluded that it cannot be real, asked my father whether it was all a joke, and he said yes

i already knew the sort of terrain horses need to walk, i already knew that areas for people to move through have to be at least as wide as the people

but it took another act of thinking to get to the corollary

Dennis
In reply to this message
well for the record, i don’t think the goal should be conversion

if i find that someone is just permanently irrational, i avoid them

In reply to this message
Can people have incompatible worldviews in their minds and function just fine -> yes
Rand stressed that contradictions aren’t just kinda bad but destructive, a matter of life and death

Dirk
you won't take them seriously as thinkers, presumably, but you can still have a jolly good time with them

Dennis
why would i do that when i can have a jolly good time with others who are also good thinkers

Dirk
In reply to this message
there is a big world of happy and thriving christians out there that say otherwise

In reply to this message
you are welcome to set your own criteria for whom you spend time with, of course, for me not everyone has to be a well-rounded intellectual

Dennis
In reply to this message
those christians live despite their irrationalities, because of the achievements of rationality around them that christianity historically tried desperately to prevent

in any case, i am unclear where we are re gradual changes vs no compromising

Dirk
yes, and because they believe their christianity is compatible with that rationality, they are gradually becoming virtually secular if not for the occasional mention of jesus

Dennis
so you’re suggesting that a mistaken belief that one is rational can help one be more rational?

Dirk
In reply to this message
we are in agreement that mysticism provides zero benefit to truth-seeking.

the disagreement i am not sure of. im saying basically people can be eased into truth-seeking gradually without having to give up their dear toys

by effectively banning their favorite toys to certain domains where we don't have to care about it

and having them believe that you can just have them side by side without contradiction

that may have negative side effects, but were they aware of the actual incompatibility, they might choose the religion

which would be worse

so really just more of a trick of persuasion

Dennis
that would require hiding things, which aids unreason

Roshan
In reply to this message
I wouldn’t have any friends if this was my criteria lol

Dennis
In reply to this message
that’s really bad

Dirk
In reply to this message
yes, unreason that is better than even more unreason

Dennis
what i mean is, it would lead to less reason, not more

Roshan
In reply to this message
No it’s not

Actually I exaggerated some of them are much more rational than others and I actually get along with them better

But the less rational non-intellectual ones have their place

Dennis
you don’t have to make that kind of choice

there are billions of people in the world to choose from

Roshan
True I guess it comes from an insecurity that I wouldn’t be able to make better friends that i stick with these

Dirk
yeah and there are tons who are shit intellectuals but are fun to play mario kart with, or play music, hike, or whatever things you enjoy that aren't debates

i like that there are people who take ideas very seriously, that is why i am talking in this chat, attending rat fest, listening to podcasts, etc

Dennis
i think there’s a difference between being a decent enough thinker (good) and an intellectual (bad)

in any case, unless i’m mistaken, we are still back to square one re evolution vs no compromises

[Dirk, Roshan,] may I publish this conversation on my blog? and the remainder if it continues

Dirk
i don't think we are. we agree that we cannot make compromises if we are serious thinkers

Dennis
this conversation seems important philosophically

Dirk
i'm just saying that it takes time for people to become serious thinkers and their blindness to compromise being impossible, helps them go from a total[ly] irrational worldview, to the serious thinker who realises that mysticism offers zero to truth-seeeking

Roshan
In reply to this message
Only if you pay me per word

Kidding I would be honoured to be on your blog

Dirk
so something like: compromise incompatible, but you can come from any starting point and make your way there

i don't see a conflict, so if we continue this i'd be interested to hear where you think there is a conflict, beside the one we have already resolved

In reply to this message
yes

Dennis
In reply to this message
that sounds to me like a restatement of the problem, not a solution

In reply to this message
i don’t think this blindness you speak of helps rationality, i believe it helps irrationality

Dirk
resolved: mysticism incompatible with truth-seeking

unresolved (for me): where precisely is the conflict between revolution / evolution

In reply to this message
i'm thinking strategically, almost like a sociologist

Dennis
i understand

i’m saying the strategy will backfire

Dirk
to have this blindness exist in the mind of us now, it would aid irrationality

as we can let the rot into our minds

but people who are already firmly in the realm of dungeons and dragons

allowing them this blindness can get them into secularism

however i am open to the thought that stating that this is absolutely not possibly compatible in any way could be of better help than allowing the delusion to exist

i do not know

Dennis
from rand’s anatomy of compromise:
1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

i think 2 and 3 are relevant re allowing the blindness you speak of

Dirk
In reply to this message
one argument for your case is that the devout are already living lives incompatible with their religous affinities. i recall this one guy who lived according to the bible for a year, and it was totally nutty

Roshan
In my own case it took the kind of brutal takedown of religion that Dawkins excels in to yank me out of some fuzzy thinking about god which made me have all kinds of superstitious thoughts and rationalisations. I used to say things like ‘science and religion are both different ways of getting to the ultimate truth’ 😂

Dirk
In reply to this message
I am open to Rand being true

Could we find historical examples?

Roshan
My conversations with my more rational friends did nothing i actually would get more defensive

But god delusion bitch slapped me out of that shit

Dirk
In reply to this message
One point for Rand then.

Dennis
In reply to this message
yes she gives the examples of republicans vs democrats for 1, united nations for 2

The declared goal of the communist countries is the conquest of the world. What they stand to gain from a collaboration with the (relatively) free countries is the latter’s material, financial, scientific, and intellectual resources; the free countries have nothing to gain from the communist countries. Therefore, the only form of common policy or compromise possible between two such parties is the policy of property owners who make piecemeal concessions to an armed thug in exchange for his promise not to rob them.
The U.N. has delivered a larger part of the globe’s surface and population into the power of Soviet Russia than Russia could ever hope to conquer by armed force.

Dirk
Interesting

I am now less convinced of my stance

But I am not sure the extent to which we are finding a philosophical truth, or simply cases where we compromise, and cases where we do not

Dennis
cool. yeah the way i see it it’s like the robber metaphor: asking reason (property owner) to make concessions to mysticism (wannabe robber), but making it worse by asking reason to turn a blind eye to this injustice (the blindness you proposed)

Dirk
Like, if I am in a hostage negotiation I might argue into the worldview of the captors, if I think that benefits me then. But I can also think of a situation where I'd like to dismantle their view completely, in my favor.

Dennis
yes temporarily to get out of the emergency (there are additional issues with using emergency situations for moral arguments but that aside [https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emergencies.html])

but imagine pretending you are not in a hostage situation, that would not help you, it would make things worse

Dirk
it may work as a drawn out strategy where i join into the larp but change course slowly

i think this has a name, let me think

Dennis
that sounds like you would retain your awareness of the problem though, which sounds different from the blindness you originally proposed

In reply to this message
well the courting of the blindness was always temporary!

of course eventually i'd try to slap the woo woo out of everyone

Dennis
maybe the ‘solution’ (not really a solution but a reality we have to live with) is that, as a knowledge-laden system, your mind simply won’t let you flip a switch (edit: in the revolutionary sense)

so, the reality is that changes toward rationality will necessarily be gradual

but that this is a precarious situation and it takes consistent effort and rededication to make it to the other side

this is reminiscent of going from static to fully dynamic society and the intermediate stage our society finds itself in. i recall dd describing this state as unstable in boi iirc

rand is still right that no collaboration between reason and unreason should be entertained. popper is still right that the change from the latter to the former is necessarily gradual

does that square the two positions somehow?

Dirk
i think i agree with rand more than when we started this conversation

but i can't help but think that she is expressing something that isn't […] always true

because we can think of situations where we apply another strategy

Dennis
the UN is such an example. but does that mean it’s good?

Dirk
In reply to this message
i think of it more that even if your mind lets you flip the switch, you still have to go and switch it

well and also it won't let you; i think that's the essence of anti-rational memes

Dennis
yes and also knowledge creation is not automatic

Dirk
In reply to this message
does that square the two positions somehow?
kind of, but perhaps we could say that reason and unreason could collaborate for strategic purposes in the short term

i am not sure. i like rand but she says things like NEVER EVER COMPROMISE

and i'm like yeah that's nice and i see that work out for many people many times, but not always

so i can[n]ot judge it to be absolutely true, unlike popper's gradualism

Dennis
In reply to this message
she’s addressed that counterpoint btw

in any case, going back to the hostage situation

let’s say there really is someone who threatens to rob you unless you slowly hand over your property ‘voluntarily’

Dirk
the government!

Dennis
maybe you’re right and strategies for getting out of that situation really would help with gradually becoming more rational also

so if somebody did this to me, what would i do…

i might comply initially just to buy more time. depends if they also threaten violence (though i guess ultimately they do anyway, if only implicitly)

so already there’s a small amount of ‘collaboration’, though not genuine of course

Dirk
i reckon i could talk some crazy person out of the delusion that they are in for some psychosis, but if the captors were islamic terrorists i probably wouldn't bother much talking them out of islam, and just take it as a given and find a way around it

maybe i could throw a ball, test whether they're scared of death, play with that

i don't know, but you see my point

Dennis
yeah no point arguing with them, best to leave them alone. sadly in your own mind you are stuck with your irrational part, no way to just walk away from it

i suppose the analogy isn’t about talking someone out of islam but talking them out of not leaving you alone

i think i’ve replaced the original problem btw

Dirk
I can think of occasions where I think Rand is totally correct. For instance, say you are a right wing politician who favors free markets. Your position is that inequality is irrelevant nonsense, and all that matters is that the economy offers opportunities for all, and that this is legally supported. But then you come up with some strategy to lower inflation, which you then say, loudly, because you know your opponent likes it, reduces inequality. I think this kind of thing shoots you in the foot.

Dennis
yes


References

This post makes 2 references to:


What people are saying

What are your thoughts?

You are responding to comment #. Clear
Markdown supported. cmd + enter to submit. You have free speech here. You’re responsible for what you write. Terms, privacy policy
Your real name is preferred.
This small puzzle helps protect the blog against automated spam.

New Sign your comment with GPG to create or add to a public profile with all your comments.

Paste a detached signature of your comment.

              
Paste your public-key block if you haven’t before. You consent to your key’s contents, including your name, being displayed to the public.

              

Preview