-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.
IO,
If you think honest replies are laughable? Then I suppose you’re correct. That does not change that it is an honest answer.
Mr. Laughing,
I was thinking that you could enlighten me, not I am sure you can. Then you say you cannot, which is easier?
Mr. Laughing,
That is very laughable, the response to the request.
IO,
It’s a funny thing about requests. Sometimes I do them. Sometimes I don’t. I suggest you learn to deal with it.
Mr. Scribe,
Now why would one seem to think that that is a relative possibility? EOM
Mr. One:
Questions that begin with the word, “Why.” are almost always perceived as an attack. EOM
Mr. Laughing,
Why have you chosen to ignore the request for enlightenment?
Mike S,
I Look at it this way: People in power tend to push whatever ideas keep them in power.
Historically there have been two central groups in power, those that govern, and those that control the main religion of the society. They almost always strike a deal, so the government pushes that religion, and the religion pushes that particular group in power. Thus the Religious right.
Now there’s a third and possibly more powerful group, the obscenely wealthy. They strike a deal with those in government, you support us and we’ll support you. Rand’s philosophy offers a very good rationalization for that. So those in government push it as well.
The fact that the two are mutually exclusive has little to do with the fact that they both help conservatives get elected. People are surprisingly adept at holding contradictory view points. Some times is helps to treat death as something to be avoided at all costs, other times it helps to treat it as something that leads to a better existence.
You know despite the brilliant analysis displayed by Tony C. and Buddha we must face a simple fact: This thread has been hijacked by Roco. This thread was originally to deal with the oxymoronic
notion of an Objectivist Christian. This to me is really fascinating because it is another display of how the birther teabagger types compartmentalize and therefore really have no coherent philosophic view. This isn’t mere stupidity, it is pathology. Roco is merely a true believer in a cult-like political narrative that brooks neither logic, nor humanity. As such, unless he’s merely a callow youth (which is highly possible), he is but either a damaged adult and/or inept sociopath. I say inept because most sociopaths are at least convincing, Roco isn’t convincing or interesting at all.
Mike A.,
I’d like to supplement your excellent comment with the following:
Objectivism is also incompatible with most major philosophical frameworks (with the possible exception of Nietzscheism) as well as Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism and Judaism in addition to Christianity.
@Roco: As Gyges said. IBM once thought the market for computers was limited to the organizations that could afford about a $1M per year budget. A.G. Bell’s first installed telephone was a direct hot line from the home of an industrialist to his factory, and cost (in today’s dollars) about $2500 per month, but saved the guy travel time and spending all day at the factory.
Sometimes, good ideas take time to be refined and gain wider acceptance. The founders operated in an entirely different social context than we did, and ours is the improved version, with greater equality, better education, better science, longer lifespans, improved protections, and a vastly improved standard of living and comfort and entertainment. Much of that is due to our access to products and services we provide cooperatively to the public at zero profit; and if you reverted even to the founder’s non-Randian system, you would have the relatively miserable standard of living and shorter lifespan they had.
Buddha,
That was literally all the response that Rocco warrants. I considered adding an extra sentence mentioning which particular logical falacy he was committing, but it just wasn’t worth the effort of applying those ounces of pressure to my keyboard. Those calories were better spent trying to convince my son to pull my finger.
Sadly his sense of humor is too highly evolved for that to work. If you try telling him a knock knock joke he says “I’m not a door.”
I have pretty much avoided becoming involved in this thread because the topic is so broad that we can easily take it in a
hundred different directions.
With regard to the central topic, the answer is that objectivism is incompatible with every recognizable branch of what we call Christianity. The reason is that Christianity is a collectivist religion and altruism is a core theological principle. Nothing more need be said on that point.
Objectivism is also incompatible with any coherent and practical notion of social organization. The core of the problem can be found in roco’s comment above, in which he stated,”If there is a price for citizenship then the society is not a free society. Forced cooperation is not cooperation.” He attempts to reconcile these conclusions with the views of the Founders by quoting Jefferson’s observation that “[T]he idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.” But Jefferson’s statement doesn’t support roco’s conclusions because it doesn’t mean what roco thinks it means.
Of course there is a price for citizenship in a free society. At the most fundamental level, that price involves accepting the idea that the rights of other individuals are entitled to the same protections as my own. That means that as soon as two individuals determine to form a society, two things must be accomplished. First, they must reach agreement as to how the rights of each are to be exercised in relation to the rights of the other. Second, they must reach agreement on a mechanism for the resolution of disputes which may arise in the course of each person’s exercise of his own rights. The agreement to form the society in the first instance constitutes the bare bones of the social compact. The definition of the resulting relationships, the delineation of the respective responsibilities arising therefrom and the manner in which conflicts are to be resolved is the function of positive law.
Thomas Jefferson certainly recognized that society creates uncumbrances on one’s freedom of action. In a letter he wrote to Francis Gilmer in 1816, he wrote, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” The minimum price we pay for citizenship, therefore, is adherence to the “limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
Moreover, it is false to attempt to distinguish purely social relationships from commercial relationships in our analysis because the subject matter of an agreement is material only to a determination of the most appropriate method for assuring the realization of its objectives. All actions taken in furtherance of, or in violation of, the terms of an agreement are taken by individuals. That is why efforts to restrict private conduct while eliminating restrictions on commercial conduct are not only hypocritical, but irrational.
In sum, objectivism is subject to the same utopian deficiency as communism with one important distinction. There are numerous existing examples of thriving communal societies. No objectivist society exists and, were it attempted, my opinion is that it would quickly devolve into a Hobbesian nightmare.
Sterile operating rooms are an plot to keep the germ down through regulation! It’s anti-germist propaganda, I tell you. And nothing is more American than unfettered germs, damn it! A germ should be free to do what he/she/it wants to do without government intervention. Because that’s what freedom means: freedom from responsibility for your actions!
America!
Where even Staph can live up to its full
criminalpotential!Tony C.
1, May 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“Well, I am arguing against a simpleton”
—————–
lol! oh dear….
now I’ll have to come back later….
@Buddha: Thanks for the response; I am on deadline for a submission and am running out of time.
@Roco: Some small amount of taxation is necessary …
Wait; aren’t you the guy that parroted Rand and said “all taxation is theft” ?
So some small amount of theft is necessary? If coercive taxation is necessary, any philosophy of government that considers coercive taxation “theft” is fundamentally broken; it cannot create a functioning government.
Since YOU believe it is necessary, you have to believe it is legal for some things, and then the only thing we are arguing about is this question: How does a society determine what we should pay for with coerced taxes, and how do we determine what we should not pay for with coerced taxes?
I will let you answer, but for my money, a super-majority vote on both new taxes and repealing old taxes seems a likely scenario, since we will never get everybody to agree on anything that seems a prerequisite to having any kind of government at all. Also, a sufficient super-majority would presumably make the decision certain enough that we could be pretty confident that a simple majority would still approve for many years.
But please, now that you have agreed that coerced taxation is a necessity, tell me your fair scheme for determining how we should implement it?
“Some small amount of taxation is necessary but if it was so patent, then why did it take almost 120 years to institute an income tax?”
Some small amount of sterilizing of surgical equipment is necessary, but if it was so patent, then why did it take several thousand years to institute completely sterile Operating Rooms?
@Woosty: That’s a bit simplistic don’t you think?
Well, I am arguing against a simpleton, who doesn’t believe the facts before him even when we point at them. Roco is a faithless debater; he demands answers to questions without answering any himself, basically. And he keeps asserting the same false things.
Nature and God are not separate entities in my mind…you cannot take one without the other. Nature is not the enemy…
On the contrary, nature IS the enemy; we fight it daily. That is why we have shelter, farms, fertilizer, air conditioning, clothing, medicine, surgeries, x-rays, fences, soap and barbers. Nature is why we invented spears and weapons, it is why we risked our lives to evict the damn cave bears from the shelters we wanted. It is why we tamed fire, and why we walk through the woods with a stout stick in hand. That bitch is out to get us, Woosty, and she always wins in the end.
Mr. Laughing,
Please explain to the uninformed one(s) how Ms. Rand has most influenced your life. I cannot connect if you like her works or if you find them lacking in substance and merit(s).
She plays to ego, W=c.
Rand is popular with a certain kind of pol for the same reason certain people within the entertainment community fall into Scientology: it plays to their innate love of self and feelings of “specialness”.
It’s a cult of personality in every possible meaning of that phrase.