AS-Ch. 6: Dr. Pritchett, Reductionism, and Determinism

My last post explained reductionism—a notion that complex things including human behavior are “really just” simpler things. This post explains 3 types of reductionism (metaphysical, temporal, and behavioral) and how they lead to determinism.

Metaphysical reductionism explains human behavior by attributing it to general universal realities such as laws and principles. Such explanations reduce human beings to special cases of something more general. Metaphysical reductionism makes it difficult to retain uniqueness and individuality. It logically implies that a person is not really a “person”, but simply a bundle of particular variables operating within a lawful system or structure. For example, a women from her own perspective may understand herself to be participating in her marriage and family out of a sense of love and devotion giving her identity and meaning, In a reductive feminist analysis, on the other hand, the women is understood to be trapped in an inherently inequitable system, exploited and victimized by a powerful structure of gender relations.

Metaphysical reductionism is incompatible with meaning and individualism. If people are “really just” the products of a metaphysical reality (univeral laws, principles, or structures) then their actions are determined or caused by that reality.

Temporal reduction is a the idea that every action arises from a string of previous actions that occurred earlier in time. Things that happened in the past influence our present behaviors, therefore the past controls our present. Breaking free from the past requires that one intervening in the present by creating new consequences to actions. This building up of a “new past” is the essence of behaviorist conditioning. However, this cannot free a person from the past. It only replaces one past for another. Since we cannot change the past, our past causes our actions.

Biological Reduction, like temporal reduction is a type of metaphysical reduction, it reduces our actions to genetic, chemical, or neural processes. As I said in the previous post, Dr. Pritchett believes that humans are “really just” a collection of chemicals. Biological reductionism is currently very popular in psychology and cognitive science. This explanation implies that our actions are also determined by our biology. The loss of meaning is clear in biological reductionism. A husband feeling love for his wife is simply responding to a the particular biological state that he is in. A person cannot really love just a a clock does not really know time.

Reductionism leads to determinism and undermines free will. It takes away meaning and destroys individualism. As Dr. Pritchett said "Man’s metaphysical pretensions," he said, "are preposterous. A miserable bit of protoplasm, full of ugly little concepts and mean little emotions and it imagines itself important! Really, you know, that is the root of all the troubles in the world."

AS-Ch. 6: Dr. Pritchett and Reductionism

Dr. Simon Pritchett is a guest at Reardon's party. He is a pompous philosopher. Ayn Rand inserts this character to reveal a contrasting philosophy to her own. Dr. Pritchett believes in reductionism, determinism, skepticism, and nihilism. I will create a post on each of these.

Reductionism

Reductionism is the philosophical position or scientific paradigm that holds that the simplest explanations are usually the best. The notion of Ockham's Razor which was popularized in the 1997 movie "Contact" is one example of reductionism. It states that if there are several explanations for an event, the one that makes the fewest unsupported assumptions is the best explanation. At its most basic level, the notion of reductionism is that some complex phenomenon, X, when properly understood will be to shown to really be a simpler phenomenon, Y. Therefore X is really just Y and it follows that the complexity of human behavior is simply the result of mechanical, biological processes. As Dr. Pritchett said, "man is nothing but a collection of chemicals." Therefore life has no more meaning apart from the random mechanical processes of the body.

Atlas Shrugged—Chapter 5

I enjoyed d'Anconia's introduction.
Here is one of my favorite passages so far:

"Don’t you ever think of anything but d’Anconia Copper?" Jim asked him once.
"No."
"It seems to me that there are other things in the world."
"Let others think about them."
"Isn’t that a very selfish attitude?"
"It is."
"What are you after?"
"Money."
"Don’t you have enough?"
"In his lifetime, every one of my ancestors raised the production of d’Anconia Copper by about ten per cent. I intend to raise it by one hundred."
"What for?" Jim asked, in sarcastic imitation of Francisco’s voice.
"When I die, I hope to go to heaven, whatever the hell that is, and I want to be able to afford the price of admission.
"Virtue is the price of admission," Jim said haughtily.
"That’s what I mean, James. So I want to be prepared to claim the greatest virtue of all that I was a man who made money."
"Any grafter can make money."
"James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning."

I must admit that I feel very attracted to the notion that money is a barometer of a man's virtue. But...

I really like the admonition about words—sloppy words reveal sloppy thinking.

Atlas Shrugged—Chapter 4

The anti-dog-eat-dog rule was passed forbidding the railroad companies to engage in "destructive competition".
According to the economist Joseph Shumpeter, creative destruction via competition is essential to progress. The typewriter industry had to be destroyed to allow for the innovation of the computer.
An anti-dog-eat-dog policy eliminates accountability because a competitor can blame their poor performance on the competitive practices of others. It is a policy that protects the weak at the expense of the productive. It distorts the market because it prevents the necessary information or feedback that allows creative destruction to occur.

Atlas Shrugged—Chapter 3

The chapter opens with a conversation between Orren Boyle and James Taggart. Setting: Bar. Paul Larkin and Wesley Mooch are also there. Here is part of the conversation:

Boyle: There’s nothing more destructive than a monopoly.
Taggart: "Yes, on the one hand. On the other, there’s the blight of unbridled competition.
Boyle: That’s true. That’s very true. The proper course is always, in my opinion, in the middle. So it is, I think, the duty of society to snip the extremes, now isn’t it?

The tendency to assume a middle position is interesting. The middle way thinking in my opinion is weak and naive. It is a fence-sitting appease position. Today we call it bipartisanship. Anyone can define what they do as "in the middle" or "balanced" by simply defining the extremes around him. But, opinions are constantly shifting. What is extreme today might be mild 100 years from now. For example, the American revolution was considered extreme and radical at the time. Now, those who want to preserve the principles of the revolution are called conservatives. Since what is considered extreme shifts, the middle way is always shifting as well. It is an unprincipled position. It is the lukewarm position we should spit out of our minds.

It turns out that Fascist and Nazi intellectuals constantly touted a "middle" or "Third Way" between socialism and capitalism according to Jonah Goldberg. I do not think that they were weak but were appealing to the enticing nature of middle way thinking by simple calling their position the middle way. But, the Fascist were socialists nonetheless. It reminds me of an argument that says that things are both absolute and relativistic. This argument is silly to me because it ultimately means that everything is relative anyway.

Our goal should not be to find the middle way, but to find the truth. Once we find the truth, we should not move even if we are considered extreme while opinions shift all around us.

I have written about the left's claim to the middle way here.

Atlas Shrugged—Chapter 2

When Hank Rearden came home after pouring his first order of Rearden Metal, he was met with rudeness from his mother, his wife and his brother Philip. Philip said that Hank worked too hard and his enjoyment of work was a form of neurosis. He called Hank conceited when he gave his wife a bracelet made from the first pouring of Rearden Metal.

Philip was weak and unhealthy and had never started a real career. He was raising money for Friends of Global Progress. He had the gall to ask Hank for money after he insulted him by implying that Hank had no sense of moral duty or social conscience. Hank thought that he would somehow surprise his brother, by instead of taking offense, give him money for the friends of global progress. But Hank was surprised that Phillip wasn't happy about the donation. Hank's wife Lillian said that Hank gave the money for selfish reasons. For Philip it wasn't enough for Hank to give money, Philip wanted Hank to feel the same way he did about the underprivileged children and feel the same way about the society.

Philip reminds me of people that have so much invested in solving a problem, that even when the problem is solved, they must still keep the problem alive to keep themselves employed. Politicians who have never had a real job, environmentalists engaged in doom-mongering, and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind. These people seem most prominent in wealthy nations—Nations that have gotten rich through the very capitalism that they despise, nations that have the best environments, and seem to have the least amount of racism in comparison to poor nations. Perhaps collectivism is an natural but ill side-effect of freedom and prosperity.

Atlas Shrugged—Chapter One

I like how Ayn Rand introduces James Taggert. He is non-commital, and waits for to hear the opinions of others. He won't take a stance, but he will complain. He has no principle, but seems to maintain wishy-washy notions about helping others that leads him to disdain people of confidence. For example, he wants to keep the contract with the incompetent Orren Boyle of Associated Steel, because in James' mind, Orren needs a chance, he is his friend, and most importantly, James can escape responsibility by blaming the problems of his company on others. He was reluctant to contract with the competent Hank Rearden. It is as if working with competent people forces one to also be accountable and principled.

What's next?

I've recently been advised to start reading the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian.The first book of the series is the now-famous story thanks to Russell Crowe, 'Master and Commander'. The series, I've been told, is much better than the movie, following the friendship and adventures of a ship captain and the doctor traveling with him. If the draw of a compelling story is not enough, the series has been touted for its historical and medical accuracy. Who knows, if one isn't careful, one just may learn something!

Aggrandized Thievery

I've just started The Book Thief this week, and Scott has informed me that he has recently started it also. All those who would like to join in, please do!

 First impressions-
1. Death as the narrator is great. Sounds like the kind of guy I'd like to meet... uh, I take that back. But in all seriousness, I really appreciate the narrative format. I can really hear the voice of the storyteller in my head.

2. Scenery is described as if with broad strokes of thick oil paint. Maybe it's the heavy theme of colors, but I can really feel the mood of the settings.

3. This story is starting out a lot like The Hunger Games.  
   Similarities:
     a. scrawny poor girl  is oppressed by "the man" and learns how to scrap for herself.
     b. She disobeys to survive, and eventually starts sticking it to "the man".
     c. Enter blonde childhood friend who has been in love with her from the beginning.
     d. ... perhaps more to come. Let me know of you saw the parallel, or if I'm off my rocker.

A reboot of the GRMBCFM?

I'm ready to try again if anyone else would like. I hear you, Carl, on Lost Symbol but I've already read it. Let's discuss, though, if anyone else would like to be in.

How about a new book? I'm raring to read the Book Thief or a Vonnegut. What do you guys think?

A Confederacy of Dunces

I suppose if everyone has confederated against me as the (possibly) only GRMBCFM member who truly, wholeheartedly (or maybe only openly) enjoyed the book (does Jake's post count as a high endorsement?), and provided the rest of the club might be somehow classified as dunces (not likely in this crowd, but maybe someone could make the case), I think, using Swift's test, a true genius may have appeared. Yes. You may now line up to congratulate me. In return, I offer my consolations.

Granted, I found a few parts slower than others. But I suppose we might have expected as much from a Pulitzer Prize winner (anybody read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay? Good, but long.) In the immortal (?) words of Randy Jackson, "For me, for [it], for me" the length was appreciated, since I enjoyed the tangled web of characters and events which had me curious about how they'd eventually intertwine and conclude.

In anticipation of sharing my thoughts (finally), I have pulled out my copy to peruse anew. Seeing certain choice parts again--the searing letter to pants distributer I. Abelman, Mongoloid, Esq. ("Our loyal and dependable outlets can vend any trouser bearing the Levy label no matter how abominable their design and construction. You are apparently a faithless people."), the notebook signings from "Gary, your Militant Working Boy"/"Darryl, Your Working Boy"/"Tab, Your Pacifist Working Boy," and the deeply weird correspondence between Myrna and Ignatius--I'd like to reread the whole thing. I loved the New Orleans setting, the bizarre happenings, the oddly realistic characters. The Hungarian missionary in me appreciates the Night of Joy boy's line about Ignatius "flouncing around the streets like some sort of Hungarian Joan of Arc." He continues, "That earring. It's so Magyar." Yeah: I've met about a million Hungarians, but I could not tell you what a Magyar earring looks like. Still . . . .

As a teacher of British literature, I loved the references to medieval literature and art (although much of it was over my head.) And considering Ignatius's letters, I hope I'll never receive a one from "Zorro" informing me that "[my] total ignorance of that which [I] profess to teach merits the death penalty." But hearing such a line directed at others just makes me laugh. I wish I had a cold Dr. Nut right now. I'd just sit and sip its almondy goodness and snicker.

Red pill, or blue pill?

There have been a few book suggestions so far for what to read next, I'd like to throw the new Dan Brown book, The Lost Symbol, into the hat for a fun read. Perhaps another poll Gavin?
But first of all- by show of hands: who is willing to both read and comment on a new book? It's ok if ya'll are too busy, unless your name is Scott. Sorry Scott, you don't have an option. That's right, I'm callin you out, Mr. Radio Silence. You are the common thread to this group, so man up to your call to team captain and lead some discussion!

Dunces Reborn

Since I know everyone has been secretly hoping to land the lead role in a screen adaptation of Confederancy of Dunces, I'm here to bring you the bad news: you're too late. Jon Heder's already beat you to it.

We innocently rented Mama's Boy last week, mainly to support our boy from Utah. Turns out, it's the same basic story set in modern times, with a Napoleon-ic Heder doing his version of the angry home-body scholar- that is except the obese part. I guess there wasn't room in the budget for a Big Mamma-esque fat suit.

In brief, I can't say I recommend the movie (suffering from the same strange humor as the book), but if you're curious what Hollywood would have done with it, here's your answer.

ps. Scott, you recommended the book, I think it's your duty to make some comments about it, so we can all feel some closure.

Hunger Games Triology

I know it is young adult literature.
I know it is so popular it makes your head hurt.
But I also know that both Jake and I read all 765 pages of the Suzanne Collins trilogy that we poses in our home in under 3 days.

I would suggest it for our next read.... but since it doesn't seem that we are doing that really. I will just suggest that you READ it.

I did not read- and still adamantly refuse to read Twilight. But I imagine The Hunger Games and Catching Fire are like if Twilight and Ender's Game had a baby. A very, very gruesome, baby.

It is the only book ever I have googled to see when I can get the next installment. Answer- Aug 24, 2010.

New Read

I'm up to start a new read if anyone else is? I have a lot of free time, and I could use some intellectual inspiration! :)

A blog is a terrible thing to waste

Perhaps some Veblen is coming up soon...hopefully

Swing and a miss

I've made it through about a third. I guess I need a long flight or something to really get through Dunces.
Speaking of Ignatious, I'm really picturing John Candy's character in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles." I think he even wears a similar ear-flap hat. I would even say it is his same type of comedy, funny on a late tuesday night, but generally skippable for a rerun of MythBusters. On the other hand, have we been ruined by all the imitators to really appreciate the original? Should this be regarded higher than it's more recent peers because it was a maverick of it's time?

I'm fine with choosing a new book, but if we choose a real snoozer, I'll probably keep chipping away at Ignatious\John. Maybe I could start doing like I did in high school and only read the first and last page of each chapter. :)

Let's Choose Another Book

Here are my suggestions:

• The Road to Serfdom
• Marxism: Philosophy and Economics
• 1776

I am reading The Hobbit, by Tolken for another book club this month... yes my book heart is spread between Renaissance and another. Last night I was conversing with Jake about how I just can't get into it. How now the last two reads of mine, The Hobbit, and Confederacy, were just not really my style, and how I should return to what I love most.... dark, ugly, non fiction. His reply was that I likely didn't like them both, because they are very similar. Why yes indeed they are Jake. Both Odyessy like epics, both odd and akward and fat heros surrounded by other stange characters. Both authors attempt at a quiet humor that I just don't fall in love with. Both highly awarded and acclaimed of course as well. Just a note.

Are Jake and I the only readers here or are others just not posting. It seems if I remember correctly this was the case in the 2002 original chapter of Renaissance as well, plus a Mindy. Commit folks, it ain't that hard.

Oh Fortuna - I Finished

I finally finished reading the Confederacy - I say finally, but from the lack of posting by the rest of yous, I can see I finished it before many of you. To start off, I must say that I am usually a plot driven man. I grew up on John Grisham, who writes books that are purely plot driven without any memorable characters. The lack of strong plot in Confederacy was the most disappointing thing. At first, I thought it might stop me enjoying or even finishing the book. The book starts slow. But as I got to know the characters, I found that I really did enjoy the book. By the end I was sad to see Ignatius go.

Throughout the book, I tried to figure out why Ignatius got himself caught up in so many crazy situations. I think Ignatius sought out trouble just so he would have something to write about. It's like journal writing. For those of you LDS church goers, I think the church has us write in journals because when you have to write about what you do each day, you try to make cool stuff happen during the day so that, at least on paper, you seem awesome. Ignatius thought himself a writer, so he created crazy situations that would give him something to write about.

My wife found a little tidbit about Confederacy on Wikipedia. It seems that the writer's curse lives on.
"There have been repeated attempts to turn the book into a film. In 1982, Harold Ramis was to write and direct an adaptation starring John Belushi and Richard Pryor, but Belushi's death would prevent this. Later, John Candy and Chris Farley would be touted for the lead, leading many to ascribe a curse to the role."