The purpose of this brief essay is to convince Objectivists to adopt the stance of Logical Positivism. It was inspired by a debate I had with Travis Norsen (a defender of Objectivism) regarding Positivism on the forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qm2, beginning essentially with message #60.
Imagine the following two debates:
(1) Objectivist (atheist) vs Bible-thumper. Bible thumper says that he does not ascribe to Objectivism because without Faith in God, how can there be an Absolute Morality?
(2) Positivist vs. Objectivist. Objectivist says he does not ascribe to Positivism because without the Axiom of Existence Exists, how can there be a Reality?
I contend that the response of an Objectivist to the Bible thumper in debate (1) parallels exactly the response of the Positivist to the Objectivist in debate (2), if you do the following: Take the concepts (Objectivism, Religion, Morality) in debate (1) and replace them with the concepts (Positivism, Objectivism, Reality); the result will be debate 2.
Specifically: In debate (1), the Objectivist will attack the Bible thumper�s idea of morality as relying on an undefined, unnamed, contradictory concept labeled �God.� He will go on to state that there is no rational basis for the Bible thumper�s conception of Morality. The Bible thumper will misinterpret this position and say that, according to Objectivism, Morality doesn�t exist, and if you don�t believe in Morality, then you may as well go on a killing spree. This type of argument infuriates the true Objectivist because it demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of Objectivism on the part of the Bible thumper. The Objectivist will try to clear up this misunderstanding by saying that you have it all wrong: in fact, Objectivism provides the ONLY RATIONAL foundation for the discovery of morality. This is because the Objectivist grounds his conception of morality in objective, knowable, testable, facts (�ought from is�). He will never go on a killing spree because everyone else who tries it winds up harming his self-interest. At this point, the Bible thumper will probably revert back to his previous misconception and proceed immediately to the nearest church for Confession.
Debate (2) will proceed in exactly the same way. Specifically, the Positivist will attack the Objectivist�s idea of reality as relying on an irrefutable and therefore untestable proposition, �existence exists.� He will go on to state that there is no rational basis for the Objectivist�s conception of Reality. The Objectivist will misinterpret this position and say that, according to Positivism, Reality doesn�t exist, and if you don�t believe in Reality, then you can test it by bashing your head against the wall and see if you still exist. This type of argument infuriates the true Positivist because it demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of Positivism on the part of the Objectivist. The Positivist will try to clear up this misunderstanding by saying that you have it all wrong: in fact, Positivism provides the ONLY RATIONAL foundation for the discovery of Reality. This is because the Positivist grounds his conception of Reality in Experiment. He will never bash his head against a wall because everyone else who tries it ends up dead. At this point, the Objectivist will probably revert back to his previous misconception and start re-reading Atlas Shrugged for the fifth time.
My point is that, in debate (2), the Positivist is correct, for the exact same reasons that in debate (1), the Objectivist is correct. To any Objectivist who objects to the position of the Positivist in debate (2), I make the following suggestion: Translate your objection into debate (1), and think about what your answer would be. Then translate your answer back into debate (2). This provides the Positivist�s answer to your objection.
