Everyone has their own worldview.
Some are like rural tile houses, some like urban apartment buildings; some resemble uniform template houses, while others are like bizarre custom homes; some soar into the clouds, while others are practical and understated; some are magnificent, while others are simple and plain... Everyone has their own dwelling place, and everyone has their own worldview.
I also have a worldview. I just didn't realize it before. If I were to describe my worldview in one word, it would be "objectivism." "Objectivism" is not a profound theory; it is merely a term I coined to describe my own worldview. However, as the name suggests, I do believe that "objectivism" can well summarize my worldview.
The purpose of this article is to elaborate on the most basic and core concept of "objectivism." My house may not be beautiful, but it is definitely a heartfelt and truth-seeking house. So let's clean up the house and welcome you as a guest.
The Origin of Objectivism#
Why does justice arise? Why do laws come into being? Why does power emerge... These questions are essentially asking "where do they come from?" Similarly, for worldviews, we must also ask, "Why does objectivism arise? Where does objectivism originate?"
Nature as the Origin of Objectivism#
No worldview arises out of thin air; it includes both the indirect experiences from the books I've read and the stories I've heard, as well as the direct experiences from the environment I grew up in and my body. The latter is crucial, like a seed, reflecting my nature and core structure. It can be said that the roots of objectivism are born from my core. This is the origin of objectivism.
The Contradiction Between Subjective Experience and the Objective World#
At the beginning of a game, there will be a distribution of skill points. Gender, appearance, physique, intelligence, talent, race... Once these are chosen, changing them is relatively difficult, almost unchangeable. I didn't add many skill points; I only added "self." This "self" is not about "arrogance" or "doing my own thing," but rather about a sense of subjectivity.
The world consists only of me, with no one else. Everyone else is like actors, set up for the subject. And I seem to possess great power like a god, because this is my world. — “Individualism”
Subjectivity Needs Objectivism to Complete It#
Some may ask, "You've become a god, so how can your worldview be objectivism? Shouldn't it be called subjectivism, or what you refer to as individualism?"
On the contrary, it is precisely because the sense of subjectivity is so strong that objectivism comes into being.
Suppose I am a "god," what happens to a "god" without "divine power"? A person with a strong sense of subjectivity but no talent would become a freak and a joke. Because this world will trample you repeatedly, making you understand what it means to respect the strong. The more you consider yourself extraordinary, the more you will be battered. Because when you do not grasp the rules of the objective world, your sense of subjectivity will make it hard for you to breathe.
Objectivism as a Means to Gain Power#
So, what do you need most? To become a "god" with "divine power." What is "divine power"? It is the rules of this objective world itself.
Thus, whenever something happens, I will interpret it within the objective world as I understand it. I will also continuously correct my own views to align with the objective world. And in this constant correction, I question any existing viewpoints and any viewpoints that have arisen. Whether it is my viewpoint or anyone else's, it is insignificant compared to the rules of the objective world. Because I want to gain "divine power," only the rules are the most important.
The Sources of Objectivism#
A river cannot become a great river without the influx of tributaries. The birth of objectivism is not a closed-door creation; it also needs to integrate different thoughts.
Marxism#
In “Transcending Marxism” and “The Myth of Marxism,” I attempted to refute some viewpoints of Marxism. However, refuting something often indicates that you have common ground with it.
So what has objectivism taken from Marxism? Undoubtedly a lot, because it has been continuously taught in schools, and this ongoing indoctrination is the most objective.
Objectivism Does Not Consider Distant Causality#
"Human society will inevitably move towards a communist society."
Predicting the distant unknown is neither objective nor meaningful. The greater the span, the lower the accuracy of the prediction. It can even be nonsense. Furthermore, even if human society does move towards a communist society, what does it have to do with the people of today? Brainwashing, hypnosis, and longing for plums? But those plums are probably billions of light-years away; that is true idealism. Talking about plans for a thousand years or ten thousand years is absurd when life is only about a hundred years, and youth lasts only a few decades. If we can't solve problems in thirty or fifty years, how can we talk about a hundred or a thousand years?
Distant causality can only serve a rallying effect. For example, “Elon Musk says the sun will dry up the Earth, so we must move to space.” The important thing is not what will happen to the sun in billions of years, but that moving to space is attractive in the present. What will happen to the sun in billions of years is merely a mental stimulus.
Objectivism Does Not Explore Essence#
Engels first clearly stated: "The major fundamental question of all philosophy, especially modern philosophy, is the relationship between thought and existence."
Some say, "The origin of the world is water, fire, atoms, matter, consciousness..." Is that interesting? Philosophers always want to see the essence through phenomena, but what they see through phenomena is merely phenomena. Or rather, it is just the appearance of the world. Others say, "You think that not seeing the essence is agnosticism." I do not have the authority to evaluate whether it is knowable or unknowable, but I do know some things while not knowing others. This world is too vast; how can I know whether it is knowable or unknowable without empirical evidence? Moreover, what I see is only the appearance of things, which is the only thing I can be sure of.
In this world, no one can claim to have discovered the essence of things or the essence of the world; what we discover is merely what we see, know, and hear, which is to say, the appearance.
Whether the world is materialistic or idealistic does not depend on how we say it. The discussion of materialism and idealism is meaningless because the objective world is right there. What we can grasp is only the appearance that can be negated.
Objectivism Takes "Objective" as the Highest Principle#
"Matter determines consciousness, and consciousness has a dynamic reaction to matter."
Matter is primary, consciousness is secondary.
The objective world contains many things, but they all unify under "objective." Matter is certainly primary, but nothing is secondary. Consciousness itself is objective, and matter is also objective.
The objectivism advocated here is without "subjectivity". "And the subject that is attached to the objective, which is usually referred to as subjective, is the thinking activity that occurs in the human brain. This subject itself is objective." — Transcendently Objective
If there is a secondary nature, then appearance is secondary. Thinking is a phenomenon, justice is a phenomenon, groups are phenomena, interests are phenomena... These phenomena all have their own laws and relative independence. It is akin to how many languages exist on top of computer hardware, various system programs.
It is not "the economic base determines the superstructure," but rather "matter determines phenomena," "flesh determines spirit." If one acknowledges objectivism and recognizes that matter determines phenomena, one will not distinguish between material consciousness, subjective and objective, material and spiritual... Everything is objectivism. Everything awaits discovery, and everything can be transformed.
Objectivism Absorbs Marxism's Approach to Connecting "Objective" and "Phenomena"#
I do not have to accept various assertions of Marxism. Because I do not need to promote this, regardless of how others praise or criticize, truth is truth, and error is error. And all truths, once they appear in my mind, should fall to the mundane, becoming a recognition of the appearance of the world. This is the conservatism of objectivism towards everything.
What truly attracts people to Marxism is its analytical approach to the material basis of phenomena and its attempt to transform that material basis. Others may be singing the praises of rights, freedom, and human rights, while Marxism attempts to explain various phenomena in a more objective way. Others are confined within their frameworks of "rights, freedom, morality..." but Marxism can connect the understanding of these "secondary systems" with "objective."
Legalist Thought#
Marxism is the pre-installed software of today's education, while Legalist thought is the pre-installed software of rulers throughout history. The means of controlling the populace in Legalist thought deepens objectivism.
The Penetration of Legalist Thought#
The Analects is approachable. Aside from the "ruler-ruler, minister-minister, father-son" set, the "benevolence and righteousness" advocated by Confucianism operates perfectly within the moral system. Whether sincere or feigned, Confucius makes people feel as if they are in a spring breeze. In contrast, Legalism penetrates morality and materializes everything.
"Those who are truly virtuous do not conform to the common ways; those who achieve great success do not conspire with the masses." — “Shangjunshu | Reform”
"When the people are weak, the state is strong; when the people are strong, the state is weak. Therefore, the governance of the state should focus on weakening the people." — “Shangjunshu | Weakening the People”
"Confucians disrupt the law with culture, and knights violate prohibitions with martial force." — “Han Feizi | Five Pests”
The Shangjunshu begins by shattering all "common" and "mass" notions. Morality and the people are not standards in his eyes; instead, they should weaken the populace. Increasing knowledge and experience is good, but Shang Yang aims to keep the people ignorant. "Culture and martial skills" are a kind of intelligence and skill, yet Han Fei seeks to eliminate the "five pests" who possess "culture and martial skills." How can this not be shocking?
This aligns with objectivism's penetration of all values. Denying everything strikes at the material basis of morality and humanity. Legalists do not believe in morality, etiquette, customs, or ancestors; they believe in the universality of interests.
The Pragmatism of Legalist Thought#
"Thus, if a sage can strengthen the state, he does not adhere to the old laws; if he can benefit the people, he does not follow the old rites." — “Shangjunshu | Reform”
As long as it can "strengthen the state and benefit the people," there is no need to adhere to old laws and rites. The Shangjunshu also clarifies its purpose at the beginning: "strengthening the state and benefiting the people," which is essentially advantageous to the monarch's centralization of power. To achieve this, they can disregard anything and spare no effort.
For example, Shang Yang forbade "state ministers" from engaging in "broad knowledge, eloquence, or leisure." Thus, farmers would "not pursue knowledge" and focus on reclamation. To expand the monarch's power, he unhesitatingly stripped the people of their rights and attempted to change the people's perceptions through a practical method—preventing farmers from broadening their knowledge. At the same time, Shang Yang believed that the people's human nature is "hungry for food and laboring for ease," and human nature is nothing more than the pursuit of fame and profit. Therefore, the monarch must "control the reins of fame and profit" to manipulate the populace. By "controlling myriad desires and presenting one benefit," he achieves mastery over the people...
Interests are certainly just one "phenomenon" of the "objective," but "interests" are more fundamental than "benevolence and righteousness," and can better explain the operational laws of society. Although the operations of Legalism are still quite crude, they have already begun to change issues directly from an objective level.
The Universality of Legalist Thought#
Although Legalist thought serves the rulers, if we stand on the side of the people, we can completely think in reverse.
If we do not want others to become "truly virtuous," we can use "common" and "mass" to bind the rulers;
If we do not want farmers to be farmers for generations, then we should enlighten those "wise people," enlightening the people;
If we want to violate prohibitions with martial force and disrupt laws with Confucianism, then we must possess weapons and culture;
If we want the people to be strong, then we must do everything possible to limit the government;
If we do not want the people to be controlled, then we need to ensure that their various desires are perfectly cultivated...
Legalist thinking is divergent, practical, and shortsighted. "The truly virtuous do not conform to the common ways," and walking a new path is naturally fraught with difficulties and obstacles. Making mistakes is inevitable. Because of its divergence, Legalism dares to solve all problems; and solving problems inevitably requires effectiveness and tangible results; and precisely because it is effective, it is easy to overlook unseen connections and become self-righteous. Thus, the initiators Shang Yang and Han Fei met with tragic ends, while the Qin Empire, which first implemented "rule by law," crumbled into ashes amidst laughter. After enough trial and error, successive dynasties mastered a complete set of means to control the populace. Looking at this matter without any bias, it is becoming increasingly refined.
The Structure of Objectivism#
We have introduced the origins and sources of objectivism. The great river of objectivism has begun to take shape. So what exactly is objectivism? What parts does it include? What functions do they perform in relation to each other?
The Core of Objectivist Structure#
The first layer of the structure of objectivism is simple, centered on "respecting objective laws," with a series of other elements aimed at better achieving this goal. Although "objective" is the soul, without a supporting second layer of structure, it can only be an empty phrase. In other words, the core of objectivism actually lies in these supporting parts. As I have always said, the soul is not important; the body is what matters. Because controlling the body means controlling the soul.
Objectivism is a worldview, but it is also a methodology. The second layer of objectivism, which consists of its various principles, helps us to "respect objective laws" as much as possible, thereby understanding this world.
"Transcendent Objectivity" as the Anchor of Objectivism#
Transcendent objectivity is an absolute illusion, a meaningless illusion that has no effect on the objective world, and has nothing in common with humans. It can be a material world or something else. It may be heaven or hell. Regardless of what that world is, it has nothing to do with us. — Transcendently Objective
Without darkness, there is no light. Without "transcendent objectivity," there is no "objective."
Let us assume that in another world, there exists another form of intelligent life, living happily or miserably. However, their world has no connection to ours. Their existence or non-existence is unprovable, and they hold no significance for us.
Religion says that after death, one will ascend to heaven or descend to hell. But I have not seen evidence of heaven's existence. So heaven may exist, or it may not. But I can be sure that believing in heaven has an effect on our world, and that believing in heaven itself is objective.
Compared to ascending to heaven, the conclusion that humans are neither born nor die is easier to draw. Humans once existed in the objective; as long as the objective conditions are met, humans can reappear in the objective.
The Values of Objectivism#
Objectivism has no value. Because there is no value, it appears very utilitarian. It is neither moral, nor humane, nor soulful; it seems to have only practical functions. But objectivism is not utilitarian; even interests are just a part of it.
Value is a fine wine; Legalist thought later adorned itself with Confucianism, and Marxism attracted the masses with the idea of a communist society. But objectivism truly has no value; it is merely an ideology that strives to respect the objective. If I had to choose one value, it would be "truth."
Regardless of the ideology, life, or religion, one should seek truth. We cannot articulate what significance this world holds, so we need not "force new words to express sorrow." Objectivism is the cornerstone of my worldview; I choose to be a real person, not necessarily kind, just, or gentle, but absolutely not a false person. If I must be false, I should do so openly.
The Principles of Objectivism#
The principles of objectivism are the concretization of the core of the objectivist structure.
Appearanceism#
First, everything we see is the appearance of the objective world.
Anything that exists in the objective must have its appearance#
Whether it is Shang Yang or Marx, they have certainly discovered some important laws in society. However, they are merely specific "uses"; whether it is capital exploitation or farmers controlling the populace, they are just a kind of lopsided law. "Body" is the objective perspective; it is the belief that the phenomena of things have their own laws. Anything that exists in the world must have a material carrier. The material carrier is the appearance of things, which is to say, what can be seen and touched.
Therefore, when thinking about problems from an objectivist perspective, one must first examine their material carriers. For example, to see who maintains morality, who upholds justice; if there are no certain conditions, is justice still justice? Is morality still morality? And so on.
Appearance is Limited#
Just like an onion, peeling back one layer reveals another layer of onion. By peeling the onion, we learn some appearances and phenomena of the onion, but this is not the essence of the onion. We do not know how many layers an onion has; even if we do, we do not know the essence of the onion. The essence is infinite, while the appearance is limited. With human limitations, we can only discover limited appearances.
Appearance is the Apostle of Objectivity#
The world is objective, but just like microscopic particles, observation can change their form. Therefore, appearance is not objective. Appearance is the apostle of objectivity. Believing in objectivism means recognizing that everything about oneself is not objective, but merely appearance.
But appearance is the only thing we can rely on; we have no choice but to understand the world through it.
Changing Appearance Will Change the Objective#
In front of me is a computer; if I punch it, it will no longer display. What is understood is appearance, but what acts on the world is objective. We do not know which rules of the objective world are affected by that punch, but it happens just like that.
What is understood is appearance, but appearance is not a form of understanding.
Having the ability to destroy does not necessarily mean understanding the objective of destruction. Many times, people marvel at the magic of electric lights. Why do they marvel? Because the change from darkness to light, this transformation from nothing to something, is hard to imagine, akin to magic. But for the inventor of the electric light, they were merely searching for suitable materials and experimenting to achieve results. Once electricity flows, the light turns on. You can discover more rules by explaining the electric light. But fundamentally, it is just that once electricity flows, the light turns on.
Similarly, life is a miraculous existence, but humans can also create life. This does not mean humans possess divine power; rather, it is about meeting the appearances necessary for life to exist, and life will naturally arise.
Principle of Distinction#
My computer has a screen, keyboard, mouse, CPU, and hard drive. If I want to understand my computer and solve some basic problems, I should distinguish the functions of some of its components. Objectivism neither pursues essence nor distinguishes between material consciousness; it merely analyzes problems through the appearances of things. This inevitably requires distinguishing the functions of various subsystems and components beneath the objective. Because distinguishing their functions is the most practical and feasible approach.
The principle of distinction originally referred to distinguishing between causal actions and changes in property rights. For example, although a house cannot be transferred, the contract for the sale of the house is valid. This concept expresses an attitude towards dealing with matters.
Previously, a friend said that telegrams were not secure enough; I replied, "Use secure software for secure matters, and insecure software for insecure matters." He expressed a sudden realization.
I find that in many aspects of life, people prefer not to distinguish and instead prefer to be indistinct. For example, in various database deletion incidents, many people have hurled insults at each other due to differing political views. In fact, it is unnecessary. As long as the software is useful, that is sufficient. As for specific software issues arising from differing political views, such as potential privacy leaks, that can be considered later. Similarly, many people question Taylor endorsing Harris, and subsequently belittle her songs as too lowbrow. In reality, it is completely unnecessary; political views are one aspect, while the quality of songwriting is another.
The principle of distinction is different from analyzing specific issues. Analyzing specific issues means treating different matters differently, focusing on the uniqueness of resolving contradictions. In contrast, the principle of distinction is about separating unrelated structures; it does not concern different treatments but rather distinctions. When you discover the differences between the two, you can treat them similarly; however, at this point, you have already recognized the risks.
For example, in religious matters, one must first distinguish between belief and religion. Then, the internal organization of religion or other factors influencing society must be distinguished to identify what truly plays a role.
Conservatism#
Objectivism requires us to adhere to objective laws. If, according to the usual worldview, we can obtain what we want, why do we need objectivism? Adhering to laws may seem harmless, but it actually harbors tremendous destructive power. Only when pioneering entirely new fields is it necessary to strictly adhere to objective laws.
The American Revolution and the French Revolution occurred one after the other; the former has one constitution to this day, while the latter has changed 13 constitutions. How much cost has been borne in between? The fact that the U.S. Constitution has lasted to this day shows the powerful force of conservatism and empiricism in the Anglo-American legal system. — “There is nothing new under the sun,” “Humble extreme conservative experience”
On the contrary, Marxism pursues a communist society, but how many lives have been lost due to the brutal public ownership? How much harm has the arbitrary exercise of power caused to society? Legalism has created a dictatorial system for the monarch, completely severing ties with morality, resulting in countless lost lives.
Success and failure both stem from the same source. Objectivism must tightly adhere to the word "objective," understanding that any laws recognized are merely appearances, the appearances of the world, not the essence; and recognizing that one's understanding is merely an imperfect understanding. This may seem humble and cautious, but it does not stem from a moral standpoint; rather, it is based on factual grounds. Pursuing objectivity inevitably acknowledges the imperfection of one's understanding, which is incomplete and inaccurate.
Conservatism is about sufficiently respecting the laws that existing things follow. Just like fixing something, if you cannot repair it well, do not mess with it. If it can be left intact, do not dismantle it.
The Future of Objectivism#
We have briefly outlined where objectivism comes from; now, where is objectivism headed?
Of course, it is about continuous application, developing and perfecting itself amidst conflicts with other value systems. Objectivism will develop many sub-principles and inferences, ensuring that the core of "respecting objective laws" remains stable and enduring. For example, individualism, life and death determined by circumstances, relative space and time. These inferences that contradict common sense are the applications of objectivism.
This article is the first to elaborate on objectivism, and there are many logical inconsistencies; I encountered many difficulties while typing, and after finishing, I felt dizzy. It can be said that "thinking without learning is perilous." However, it fundamentally expresses my current understanding of objectivism. As the underlying logic of this platform, regardless of the quality of this article, I should strive to face difficulties as much as possible. After all, it has been about two years since the term "objectivism" was coined; I have had ample time to contemplate, and I must type to identify the shortcomings of existing thoughts for the sake of renewal.