-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The GOP hearts Ayn Rand. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and his father Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), all mention the works of Ayn Rand as being influential in their lives. Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas references her work as influence in his autobiography. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is an acolyte of Rand’s thinking and knew her personally.
I would like to focus on one aspect of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, and its implications for Christianity.
Rand saw the role of any philosophical system as the understanding of reality. Reality (existence) and the ability to understand reality (consciousness) are at the heart of Objectivism. Considering existence (reality) and consciousness (man’s awareness of it), Rand assigns primacy to existence, “the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness).” In other words, “wishing doesn’t make it so.”
For Rand, consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists, “consciousness is consciousness of an object.” Eric Johnson, in a review of chapter one of Leonard Peikoff’s book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, wrote:
Since the nature (identity) of consciousness is to be aware of reality, existence is prior to, necessary for, and not subject to the control of, consciousness.
Consciousness cannot be conscious only of itself because you run into the chicken-and-the-egg problem. Consciousness requires objects to be aware of in order to create consciousness. Sensory deprivation does not validate the notion of consciousness without anything to be conscious of. Consciousness of objects, and their associated memories, were already formed before any experiments with sensory deprivation.
Rand’s primary axiom of Objectivism is the Primacy of Existence. In contrast is the Primacy of Consciousness, “the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both).” Rand’s Primacy of Existence is the reason for Objectivism’s position of atheism with respect to religion, especially Christianity and its “creator God.”
The Christian concept of God as a disembodied consciousness that created everything, except itself, is antithetical to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Objectivism provides a solid philosophical foundation for rejecting the Christian worldview.
The Primacy of Existence hasn’t received the media attention that it deserves, and I doubt that Rand’s fans in the GOP/Tea Party would understand its ramifications.
H/T: AlterNet, Anton Thorn, Dawson Bethrick, Objectivism Wiki, Ayn Rand Lexicon.
“Is not all observable reality grounded, and only grounded, in fiction?”
No. Reality happens.
“Is not observation itself merely fiction?”
No.
“Is not objectivity merely fiction?”
No. Objectivity is imperfect in human by operation of psychology. Objective facts, however, are discoverable via testing/experimentation and proper application of the scientific method. The key word being “proper”.
“Is not subjectivity also only fiction?”
No. It’s relative perception or misconception of objective reality dependent upon both point of observation and native state of the observer.
“Is not existence only fiction?”
No. Reality still happens.
“How else does observer bias arise?”
As a function of human psychology.
“The rule of law is therefore fiction?”
No.
“Ask President Obama, re: Manning?”
Why bother. It is a moot question. He’s already stated his mind is made up.
Is not all observable reality grounded, and only grounded, in fiction?
Is not observation itself merely fiction?
Is not objectivity merely fiction?
Is not subjectivity also only fiction?
Is not existence only fiction?
How else does observer bias arise?
The rule of law is therefore fiction?
Ask President Obama, re: Manning?
Tony,
“Objectivists are a cult of fiction.”
Both true and succinct.
@Roco: I’d certainly regard Objectivism as meeting the definition of a philosophy; in that it provides Objectivists with principles they can use to conduct their affairs, relate to others, etc.
I also regard it, like many, as a bad philosophy, founded on unprovable or provably counter-factual axioms, premises, foundational principles, or whatever they choose to call there core beliefs.
Objectivism would not be alone in that; all of the philosophies based on popular religions are equally founded on ideas of human nature (and nature’s nature) that are completely imaginary; essentially a set of ideas of what should be true, what the adherents want to be true, instead of what is true.
Ironically the problem with Objectivism in particular is essentially their refusal to acknowledge the reality they claim to consult. In short, Objectivism, like many philosophies, claims to be a science while practicing a religion. by ‘religion’ I mean that if reality proves something works that is contrary to their dogma, they find reason to reject it as unworkable anyway.
For example, they reject the existence of a working, cost effective, long approved interstate highway system, and claim privately owned toll roads with “toll billionaires” would somehow be an improvement for everybody.
They ignore the existence of the government run, cost efficient, top rated Veterans Administration Hospitals, they ignore the superior cost structure and efficacy and efficiency of the Medicare insurance program, and claim that the government cannot run health care. Medicare provably runs at less than 5% overhead, private insurance companies provably run at 25%-45% overhead, paying the same doctors and hospitals as Medicare, but these facts are ignored because they think Medicare is dogmatically wrong.
Objectivists are a cult of fiction. Many people when watching TV or a movie or reading a book like Atlas Shrugged fail to realize how good fictional stories are engineered. An author writing a story can time travel; moving earlier in the story to plant innocuous decisions and errors or experiences or even personality traits that justify later catastrophic decisions.
The fatal decisions of the villain, and brave self-sacrificing decisions of the hero that surprisingly lead to victory, may seem organic and inevitable, but a good author recognizes when the story strays into the implausible, and time travels to earlier in the story to shore up the plausibility.
The idea that what occurs in a work of Randian fiction is what would occur in real life is the central delusion of Objectivism. Rand invented a set of axioms, and then invented an entire fantasy world and population of characters that would operate by these axioms.
That doesn’t mean the axioms apply to real life. By analogy, I am a big fan of science fiction and the world of Star Trek, but I do not believe for a second that the world or galaxy could be run by the precepts of Star Fleet or the Federation of Planets, or that the fictional technology presented in these stories would actually be used in the way portrayed or with the voluntary restraints portrayed. I understand that all of the characters are engineered to act in ways that makes these precepts plausible within the story line.
Randians do not seem to grasp that, to me they are much like the true-believer trekkies that see Star Trek as a blueprint for the future.
Objectivism is a philosophy; it is just a philosophy grounded in fiction, not in reality.
Roco,
P.S. Wow, that’s some exhaustive research you’ve done–copying and pasting stuff “from a blog.”
Roco,
Where did I make a comment that Objectivism is not a philosophy? I have no idea what you are referring to?
Larry the Pest: I was not talking to you, I was addressing Bob’s question. I have no interest in what any conspiracy theorist has to say, considering every one I seem to meet is an obsessive compulsive nutcase who tries to create “evidence” out of nothingness. Now buzz off. This is a legal blog for grownups. You do not qualify.
OS, let me comment on your videos [even though you don’t even WATCH or read the links I post]
Video 1: Are you really going to compare AA77 with a plane that is crashing and skidding over a LONG runway? AA77 supposedly hit a wall and came to a screeching halt after penetrating 3 rings [with the WEAKEST part of the plane I might add, the nose]. The only way you can make an accurate comparison of AA77 with other crashes is to show us pictures of planes crashing into BUILDINGS—-not crashing and dragging over hundreds of feet along a long runway. This is how his side has to make his point—by giving comparisons of 2 events that couldn’t be more different.
What will he post next? A video of a plane flying toward the sun? And when it vaporizes, he will say, “See? See? Planes vaporize!” LOL
Video 2: Like I said earlier, the wings of that plane do NOT break off. They go into the wall WITH the plane. I posted a video above called Pentagon Strike showing pictures of what plane crash sites look like—–debris EVERYWHERE, and large chunks of debris. There was virtually no debris at the Pentagon—-and the few pictures of debris that I have seen could have easily come from a painted drone.
Don’t think our gov’t would paint planes/drones and crash them into our OWN buildings to start wars? Read OPERATION NORTHWOODS. Google it. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff presented Kennedy with ideas to invade and start war with Cuba in 1962. One of their ideas was to PAINT OUR OWN PLANES to look like CUBAN planes and crash them into American landmarks using REMOTE CONTROLLED PLANES so we could blame Cuba. Kennedy rejected it and fired all of them. He was dead 20 months later. If they had the ability and technology to paint planes and run them by remote control in 1962, they sure as hell had it 39 years later!!! Read the document—–it’s declassified.
http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php
When will you give an example of anything NEAR the same circumstances as AA77??
Let me guess…never?
“Like the track of Flight 77. ATC kept a detailed track, as shown in the NTSB documents.”
Only a true dickhead will keep REPEATING a lie when I have already posted links showing that’s a lie. Read above asshole—I posted links showing you AA 77 was LOST for a period of time then it was seen again as it approached DC!!!
“I am all too familiar with the ATC system, having flown in it for decades. The only time there will be a dead spot is if an aircraft goes below the ability of the radar to see it.”
Or if the government is running terror drills on THE SAME DAY as the REAL event [which they were!] and they wanted the FAA, the military and NORAD to think the REAL event was the DRILL. [which they did!]
Let me ask you this doofus—–what about Norman Mineta’s testimony before the 9-11 investigation [a/k/a…9/11 whitewash]. Mineta testified that he was in an underground room with Dick Cheney roughly40 minutes before the Pentagon strike. He testified that a man kept coming in the room every few minutes saying “The plane is 50 miles out”, “the plane is 30 miles out”, and when he came in and said “the plane is 10 miles out” he then said to Cheney, “Do the orders still stand?”. Mineta said Cheney whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything different?”
Well, well all know that the Pentagon was struck, so what were the orders? The gov’t wants us to believe that the orders were to shoot the plane down, but obviously it wasn’t shot down…….so were the orders to STAND DOWN????
Do you also realize this testimony was OMITTED from the final printed report and they LIED about Cheney’s arrival time to the bunker?? They said he arrived at 9:55am [17 minutes AFTER the plane struck] DESPITE the fact that Mineta gave testimony saying he was IN the bunker with Cheney well OVER 30 minutes BEFORE the strike.
Here is the video of Mineta’s testimony
He says his testimony at the :35 second mark
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&w=350&h=250%5D
Bob, Esq said:
“Flight 77 departed Dulles at 8:20am, turned off its transponder over southern Ohio at 8:56am and thence flew back towards the pentagon while crossing the largest hole in primary radar that day on the eastern seaboard.”
Yeah I read that, but that’s not what OS said. He LIED and said there was only 35 minutes from take off time to crash time. It took off at 8:20am and crashed at 9:38am—-that’s 78 minutes, not 35.
OS is a LIAR.
Elaine M:
your comment above about Objectivism not being a philosophy is actually off base.
from a blog:
“What I have to report is that Rand and Objectivism are being treated seriously in journals, encyclopedias and textbooks across disciplines throughout academia. I’ve discussed some of that progress in a recent article for Philosophical Books (January 2003). Works on Rand’s philosophy are being published with increasing regularity, and this is a cause for celebration. Of equal importance is the publication of articles on various aspects of Rand’s philosophy in a large and ever-growing list of professional journals. This is not simply an appearance in journals friendly to libertarian or Objectivist subject-matter (among which include Reason Papers, Critical Review, Aristos, Social Philosophy and Policy, and The Journal of Libertarian Studies).
Here’s a partial list of publications where essays mentioning Rand have appeared: The Monist (a special issue on teleology, which included essays by Douglas Rasmussen, Harry Binswanger, and others), The Personalist, Catholic World, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Germano-Slavica: Canadian Journal of Germanic and Slavic Comparative and Interdisciplinary Studies, College English, University of Windsor Review, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Impact of Science on Society, Journal of Popular Culture, Cycnos, Theory & Psychology, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, The Occasional Review, The Humanist, Commentary, Nomos, English Journal, Journal of Thought, Journal of Philosophical Research, New University Thought, Journal of Business Ethics, Library Journal, Choice, Journal of Canadian Studies, Social Justice Review, Teaching Philosophy, Resources for American Literary Study, Policy Review, and Developmental Review.
Articles on Rand are also making their appearance in various encyclopedias and reference works, including Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Encyclopedia of Ethics, American Authors and Books, American Novelists of Today, Encyclopedia of World Literature, Contemporary Authors, Contemporary Literary Criticism, Contemporary Novelists, A Handbook of American Literature, American Writers, Contemporary Women Philosophers, Oxford Companion to American Literature, Reader’s Encyclopedia of American Literature, Twentieth Century Authors, and the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Libertarianism and Encyclopedia of New York State, among others. (Much of this information is available in Mimi Reisel Gladstein’s superb New Ayn Rand Companion, which also includes information on the increasing number of dissertations being written on Rand.)”
You may not agree with what she says, but to say she isnt a philosopher is rather a stretch.
Bob, This is too close to home. My wife and sister were supposed to be taking the rooftop tour of the WTC that morning. She did not answer her cell phone and for all I knew she and my sister were on that roof.
She called home about dark that evening. It was not until then that I knew she had survived. The two of them had changed their plans at the last minute. So, I do not take this lightly.
I have looked at the data from the FDR. It was helpful in understanding what happened.
Bob, good questions. i am really tired since I have been going at it since 4:15 this morning, but will try to post a coherent answer.
One of my former business partners was a recently retired Navy Lt. Commander with many sources inside the Pentagon. He lost a number of good friends that day.
I try to keep up with scientific aviation literature, including a subscription to the NTSB Reporter. I had a physics minor which helps me understand the dynamics of the incident, and have been flying airplanes for more than a half century. I am familiar with ATC and how investigations are conducted. I have consulted as an expert in several aviation cases.
Watch these two videos. The first one is a controlled crash of a Boeing 720. This airplane bleeds off kinetic energy gradually by shedding parts and coming to a stop relatively slowly. This is more or less what the conspiracy theorists think the crash should have looked like. There are big pieces of the plane left after the fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjRVC2-SP9g&feature=related
This next video is a better example of what REALLY happened to the airframe. The airframe is almost vaporized, with the big engines doing most of the damage to the barrier. The barrier is not quite as wide as the wingspan of the airplane, so a couple of feet of each wingtip shear off and keep going. The moment of impact of the F-4 is about a hundred miles an hour slower than the speed of Flight 77 at the moment of impact. As I said in an earlier comment that you may have missed, the cloud of “smoke” is a mixture of aluminum dust from the plane, plus silica and calcium from the barrier. Notice the tiny glittering objects spraying out in all directions. That is the airframe, turned into metal confetti and dust. The whole thing, wings, fuselage, tail and all shredded into stuff you can sweep up with a broom. the only thing left almost intact were the two J-79 engines and the landing gear. Those are heavy and dense with a lot of mass. The white and grey chunks are concrete as the engines and heavy parts cause the center of the barrier to disintegrate as they punch through.
Elaine,
ROFL
Man oh man, do I love the writers of The Simpsons. They’ve had their off episodes, but when you’ve been on the air as long as they have? I have to admire their constant consistent commitment to funny.
Elaine,
That was hilarious! Ayn Rand got hit by the ugly train and the crap she wrote wasn’t any prettier!
BTW,
Per the flight data recorder, you may want to read this. It was analyzed by pilots like yourself.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
Otteray Scribe,
Are you aware that certain folks at TRACON in Westbury figured out that those pilots of those four planes weren’t just good; they were “perfect?”
Somehow, they all had access to and knowledge of classified information regarding holes in the primary radar that day; and all four planes exploited that information in their flight paths and choices of where to turn off their transponders.
Particularly amusing is the path of AAL 11 and how it made a five minute detour after the hijacking just to turn off its transponder as soon as it hit the cusp of a hole in the primary radar.
Otteray Scribe,
Your explanation sounds reasonable enough; although I’m keen to guess from what official report(s) you got your information from.
I always found the report from the Arlington County fire chief, Ed Plougher, quite intriguing on this subject:
Q: Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?
Plaugher: First all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I’m talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1617
Larry,
Flight 77 departed Dulles at 8:20am, turned off its transponder over southern Ohio at 8:56am and thence flew back towards the pentagon while crossing the largest hole in primary radar that day on the eastern seaboard.
So, it seems to me that we have a real time screaming science experiment that disproves all of the above……except the`immorality of initiation of force….which we reeeeeally proved out the hard way…..