San Diego Objectivist Study Group

Here are some notes from the discussion of “The Anatomy of Compromise” by Ayn Rand (January 1964, CTUI pp. 144-149):

1. Compare Rand’s use of the term “practical” in the text in relation to her usage of terms such as “greed” in other essays.

   Rand uses the term “practical” in two ways: a normal way and a scare-quote way. For her, the practical is the moral, in the sense that just as there is no mind-body dichotomy, so there is no theory-practice dichotomy. As such, to be rational is to be practical. This is her normal way of using the term “practical.” On the other hand, Rand also uses the term in quotation marks to signify the conventional usage, on the mystic-altruist-pragmatic sense. It is in this sense that she ridicules those who deride the ideal as the impractical, namely, the “practical” man who doesn’t think with principles but only acts on concretes. (CTUI 144d)

   This practice of using both the word and the word-in-quotes allows Rand to distinguish a valid concept, denoted by the unqualified word, from an invalid one. It further allows her to retain and reclaim the word from the corruptive influence of contemporary mystic-altruist-collectivist philosophy. We thus can observe an array of terms for which there are double meanings, relative to a particular philosophical context:

   	Unqualified word	Word in scare quotes
   Term	Rand-assigned meaning (but not necessarily endorsed)	Corrupt meaning (invalid concept)
   practical	choice or action conforming to reason	choice or action divorced of reason, theory, or ideal
   greed	abundant desire to pursue material or spiritual values	“excessive” desire for self-gratification injurious to others
   selfishness	rational egoism	Nietzschean, plundering individualism
   ruthlessness	minor virtue of justice	major vice against mercy
   liberal	one who is pro freedom	one who is an altruist-statist but against communism
   conservative	one who is pro dogmatic tradition	one who is an altruist-statist but for capitalism

2. Explain Rand’s use of the term “principle” in the text.

   Rand uses the term “principle” in two distinct ways. The first is the technical, epistemological sense of a proposition at the base of a science, a body of knowledge. Thus, she defines it as “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” (144b)

   The second way that Rand uses the term is more conventional and is more synonymous with a basic belief (in someone’s head) whose truth has not been endorsed by the speaker. Thus, she writes, “The conflict will follow that course regardless of whether the basic principles shared by the two adversaries are right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational.” (146b)

3. What are the workings of principles in practice; in other words, what are the precepts of principles?

   Although Rand calls these following as “rules,” they are objectively abstract principles for guiding the practice of following principles (145d):

   1. When two of us hold the same basic principles² but are in conflict on a given issue, the more consistent of us will outdo the other.
   2. When two of us hold different basic principles² yet are in collaboration on a given issue, the more wrong, bad, or irrational of us will outdo the other.
   3. Opposite basic principles², when clearly and openly defined, give advantage to the rational of us; but when not or hidden or evaded, give advantage to the irrational of us.

   The example Rand gives for #1 is along the spectrum of consistency for statists, from inconsistent to consistent: “conservatives,” “liberals,” socialists, and communists. (146d) For #2, she cites the collaboration of the United States with those in the United Nations. (147d) Finally, for #3, she cites the presence of knowledge, efficacy, and thought on one side; and their absence (ignorance, impotence, and irrationality) on the other—with knowledge pertaining to cognitive contents, efficacy, to effectiveness in physical action, and thought, to effectiveness in psychological action. (149b)

4. How does Rand explain the relationship of principles to goals?

   Although she briefly alludes to a relationship, Rand does not really elaborate on it explicitly. (145c) However, we can infer from the text that there must be a relationship between principles and goals, namely, that the purpose of cognition, of awareness, is survival; that human survival is man’s life qua man; and that for a man to live such a life, he has to remake the physical world to suit him, he has to affect his environment, he has to exert physical effort, he has to work, to produce, to make wealth in order to sustain his life.

   Thus, principles, which are cognitive products of human awareness, are man’s means to action. Their purpose ultimately is to enable man to project and execute long-range goals to achieve the purpose of human survival. As action without principled thought is animalistic, so a “principle” with no relation to a goal is rationalistic. Rand writes, “It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.” (144c)

   As there is no dichotomy between mind and body, thought and action, theory and practice, so there cannot be such a thing as useless knowledge; and thus, there cannot be such a notion as a principle without any application for living. If one were asserted, it would not be knowledge. Conversely, at any given moment, a man has to be guided by principles (necessarily of his own integration) in order to succeed in life. Otherwise, he is reduced to focusing on the concretes at hand and acting in the range of the moment.Because basic principles determine the ultimate goal of any long-range process of action, if the person holds a clear and consistent view of the end to be achieved (i.e., the object of desire, the purpose), he will be able to make consistent decisions in the choice of means to obtain it. (145dd-146a)

5. What does “evil” mean for Rand? While deferring the question about how there is no fatalistic “historical necessities” to a later essay (CTUI “Is Atlas Shrugging?” 165c), Rand here manages to answer the age-old question of why there exists evil in the world without resorting to religious dogmas. What is this answer? (147a)

   In two places, Rand uses the term “evil”; each time, she associates it to the irrational. (145d, 147c) “Evil” is thus defined as that which is irrational in the moral realm. If an object of mind is rational, its transformation to an object of moral action is the good. Inversely if something is irrational, its application to action is the evil. A true proposition translated to a goal is the good; a false proposition or an emotional, noncognitive outburst translated to a goal is irrational and evil.

   Evil exists in the world on account of an absence of reasoning; it exists only in a vacuum. It exists from a default of not thinking, of not relying on principles to guide action. And when people unthinkingly collaborate with those who hold opposite and irrational principles, by #2 above, the irrational and thus evil will win. “In any compromise between good and evil, it is evil that can profit.” (149c)

——
principle¹: a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend. (CTUI “The Anatomy of Compromise” 144b) [Principles are to generalizations as essential characteristics are to distinguishing characteristics of a definition. (CTUI “‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing” 173c-d)]
principle²: a basic belief being reported as affirmed by someone but whose truth, rightness, or rationality may not be corroborated by the facts. (CTUI “The Anatomy of Compromise” 146b) [This is the conventional sense.]
compromise: an agreement from differences in positions which is reached by mutual adjustments. [A rational compromise is an agreement reached from differences of degree of the same position. An irrational one, from differences of kind of positions.]
collaboration: a joint undertaking, a common course of action, among two or more men (or groups). (CTUI “The Anatomy of Compromise” 147c)