This post is part of a series on Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. In the last entry, I covered Rand’s view of Idealism. Today, we dive into her view on Materialism.
The Mystics of Muscle
Rand labeled the materialist the mystics of muscle. And just like the idealists, Rand identifies four philosophers who she thinks are the major figures in materialism: Democritus, Hobbes, Marx, and Skinner.
According to Rand, the essence of materialism is to champion nature, but to deny the reality of or the efficacy of consciousness. In other words, to the materialists, mankind is simply a material body without a mind – without a consciousness. Mankind is merely a product of physical, deterministic mechanisms.
Capitulate to the Idealists
Rand claims that the materialists effectively capitulate to the idealists regarding the question of mankind’s nature. The idealists claim that mankind is either purely and deterministically material or that mankind must contain some spark of the divine within. In other words, mankind is either free and magical or scientific and thus unfree. The idealists point out that mankind is clearly free, so thus must be magical.
Rand claims that the materialists implicitly accept this alternative and simply jump on the other side. They claim that man cannot be magical and thus must be unfree.
Rand’s unique position in this debate is to throw out the alternative – to reject it completely – and instead reconcile freedom and consciousness with nature and science.
Consciousness Does Not Entail Mysticism
According to Objectivist philosophy, the concept of consciousness does not require mysticism – it is entirely compatible with science and reality. There are three statements that support this position.
- Consciousness is a faculty possessed by certain organisms under certain conditions
- Consciousness is directly observable through introspection
- Consciousness has a specific nature, including specific organs, and acts accordingly
Let’s take a turn in examining each of these statements. The first statements merely states that only some organisms are conscious under only some circumstances. Obviously, a tree is not conscious and neither is a dead human. That is one organism that is not conscious, and another organism that could be conscious must not longer is, due to being dead.
The statement regarding consciousness being directly observable is, I think, quite profound. I can, by directing my thoughts inward, directly observe my thoughts and my mental processes. I can observe the judgements that I make regarding the thoughts that course through my mind. I can tell that there is something to me, to myself.
And finally, the last statement essentially claims that consciousness has a specific identity. It has a nature, there are things that are characteristics of consciousness and things that are not characteristics of it. Consciousness arrises from the function of specific organs, such as the brain. Clearly, if a human being suffers sufficient damage to the brain that their consciousness may cease. And because consciousness has a specific identity – a specific nature – it acts accordingly. It does things that consciousnesses do – such as observe reality and form concepts. It does not do things that consciousnesses do not do – such as see through walls or read other people’s minds.
Extrospection of Consciousness
According to Rand, the materialists reject either the existence or the efficacy of consciousness because consciousness cannot be extrospected. In other words, there is no test, no empirical measurement, no scientific experiment that can be formulated to measure or show consciousness. However, as Peikoff points out, it makes no sense to set features of matter as the standard of existence and then deny consciousness.
Maybe that’s not so clear as to why?
Let’s dive in and assume that there was some device that could measure consciousness. Let’s say that this device, you can hook it up to someone’s head, and it will illuminate a red light if it detects no consciousness, and it illuminates a green light if it detects a consciousness.
What would it mean if you hooked it up to your own head and looked at the lights? How do you know what light is on and what light is off? When one light illuminates, how do you know that it illuminates – or if a light stays dark, how do you know that? In order to know if a light is on or off, you must be able to perceive the light and consciously realize that the light is on or off.
The fact that you can tell a light is on or off is all you need to know that you are conscious – and that consciousness exists.
Cannot Define Consciousness
Peikoff claims that some materialists reject consciousness because it cannot be defined. However, this ignores that there is no such thing as an infinite regression of definitions. Not everything can be defined in terms of more basic buildling blocks. At some point, the regression of definition hits the bottom – it reaches the foundation of knowledge. In philosophy, all definitions ultimately reduce to axiomatic truths, and one of these basic axioms of truth is the axiom of consciousness.
Consciousness requires no foundational knowledge to rest upon. It is as base as you can go. It is at the level of fundamental truth, from which all other knowledge rests upon.
Wrap Up
That’s another dense section. And I hope that this post helps at least one person think through some of these topics as much as writing it has helped me. As I go through this high level philosophical work, memories of discussions with friends and colleagues in high school and college flood back into my mind – wishing that I had such knowledge at the time. I think the greatest value here is in directing my to specifically avoid such time wasting debates – the tired debate of is mankind deterministic or does mankind have free will – and to, instead, realize that nothing in physics can disprove the existence of consciousness and free will.
Ryan Sawatzky 