-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.
To Gyges,
I read your comment regarding addiction with interest.
Addiction takes many forms.
Growing out of the need for religion is the mark of an evolving being. Religion used as a tool in developing an understanding between man and the Universe he inhabits works to the betterment of the individual. If one becomes addicted to religion, growth ceases and the tool becomes the master.
Ayn Rand holds fascination for those who are addicted to I as the center of the Universe. It is a childhood fantasy and a strong phantasmagoric.
@Roco: You are dodging the question by nitpicking. Show us how she proposes to pay for the government! If she can’t do that, the Rand philosophy is broken. If you can’t do it, your philosophy is broken.
Gyges/Mike Spindell:
Do either of you have a codified philosophy of life? I would hope so. So I suppose anyone with a philosophy of life, like say the Stoics or the Epicureans or Christians or Jews are all part of a cult as well?
Then who isn’t part of a cult? The man who believes in nothing or the pragmatist who believes in everything?
Personally I would rather believe in something than nothing or everything.
By the way calling me a sociopath (not you specifically) or saying I am a cultist is an attempt to silence opposing views and is not at all mature. Talk about adolescence, it would seem immaturity runs rampant on this site.
Mike Spindell:
I know a little about feudalism, that model is more like socialism than it is like capitalism.
I disagree with your assumption. Socialism typically allows an elite to remain in power. Capitalism such as we had in the 19th century was very dynamic. Many fortunes were won and lost and won and lost again.
Granted there were some extremely wealthy people there was also a large middle class and there was extreme poverty as well. We have extreme poverty now, in our supposedly enlightened era. But we don’t have a vibrant economy and opportunities for future generations are getting dimmer and dimmer.
Mike Spindell:
“It
is really funny that such a belief, rational in the eyes of the believers, relies on each human to behave with respect for the rights of others. Ergo “Magical Thinking.””
Seems to me you think it magical thinking to believe people would respect other people’s rights.
Now I doubt all people would but then that is what you have government for.
Woosty is Cat:
Rand would have been against going to Iraq in the first place.
Mike,
I don’t think we’re disagreeing here. I just wanted to explore the differences between “Anyone can be President,” and Rand’s “Being selfish is good.”
Tony C:
“Rand’s statement that The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence…”
She includes fraud, etc, non-violent forms of force to be equally wrong as well.
“A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.”
“Rand on the other hand seems to be perfect for those just on the cusp of acting like adults”
Gyges,
I like Tony C.’s assessment of this. I to became aware of her at a young age, quickly read everything she had written until then. After I finished though it began to dawn on me that these weren’t merely novels with heroic figures to identify with, but a prescription for organizing the world. As I thought about it more and more it just didn’t make sense and I also began to realize that her novels, at first blush thrilling were rather silly and poorly written.
The infatuation from beginning to end lasted through my senior year in high school.
Buddha,
Heinlien, Rowlings and recently Nylund write for a target age group. Rand writes for a target mentality. Any overlap between the two is incidental. Assuming you still exist, you’re going to stop being a teenager, but you’re not guaranteed to stop being selfish.
The shepherd prince plays to a very important aspect of growing up. It gives a safe outlet for the idea that you are not your parents and won’t grow up to be stuck with their lot in life. Wanting to be a different cog in a machine is less harmful than wanting to be out of the machine entirely. That’s why we have the “anyone can be President,” myth. In my opinion, Rand’s appeal is different.
@Gyges: There is a natural urge to always see one’s self as the hero of fictional stories; and this doesn’t have to involve empathy for others. I suspect for people with the runaway narcissism that everything is always about them and other people do not matter, they would identify strongly with Rand’s fictional heroes, and by proxy adopt her philosophy as well.
For them, rejecting Galt is like rejecting themselves; and their narcissism is so overwhelming that is too emotionally devastating to contemplate.
In the end, people that will not listen to logic are always being held hostage by their emotions.
Buddha,
I remember hearing somewhere that people who suffer from addictions tend to get mentally stuck at the stage of development they were at when they got addicted (admittedly, I’ve made no attempt to collaborate that beyond thinking about the addicts that I’ve known, and personal experience isn’t that trust worthy). I’ve been wondering how well that fits in with religions\philosophies (with the understanding not everyone who drinks a beer becomes an alcoholic and not everyone who dabbles in Objectivism starts working for the Mises institute).
Gyges,
That is a fair assessment.
Rand is juvenile fiction in every sense of the term.
However, most teens would be better served reading Heinlein or Rowling.
Gyges/Mike,
The lengths a person will go to in order to lie to another are miniscule compared to the lengths a person will go to in order to lie to themselves. Self-rationalizations are the Monarchs of Lies for they lie doubly so; to the world and to the self. That is the nature of denial – a snake with two heads.
Mike,
I’m not sure that functions on the same aspect of human nature. The “Every child” line is just a newer incarnation of the old archetype of the prince raised by the shepherd that pops up in mythologies and space operas alike. That seems to be aimed at 8-13 year olds. Basically, the target audience of Harry Potter.
Rand on the other hand seems to be perfect for those just on the cusp of acting like adults. It seems to function as a way for a 22 year-old to extend their old way of thinking and acting and rationalizing putting off joining society as a member with both privileges and responsibilities. Of course I could be projecting my experience with the books onto other people.
“I’d say the more interesting question is why those who AREN’T in power are buying it.”
Gyges,
My guess is that in the US the chimera of the American Dream still exists and in fantasy these people imagine themselves achieving it.
If you believe the fantasy that every child could grow up to be President, then your credulity is strong enough to believe that
Rand proposed something that would work in any society and work well to boot.
“Why do you think that it is magical thinking for human beings to respect the rights of others?”
Roco,
You are now moving hard into the realm of being just plain silly, by misrepresenting what I stated. Go back and read it again if you fail to understand my meaning. Most people do respect the rights of others, but a small, significant percentage delights in trampling those rights, to serve their need for wealth and power.
These are the sociopaths who will stop at nothing until they have reached the top of the heap and everybody knows it. Part of “being on top” is making sure that those below you are worse off. Why, because by their being worse off it makes the Top Dog feel even more powerful. Do some reading about feudalism, to understand the world your philosophy would bring about.
Just to put this in perspective:
You guys are arguing with somebody who shortly after saying “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?” said “everything can be improved but it takes knowing how to and what to improve and if it, in fact, needs to be improved.” I’d say expecting him to look beyond the surface of any statement or idea is being a bit generous.
Mike S,
I’d say the more interesting question is why those who AREN’T in power are buying it. I mean other than the evolutionary vestige of believing good looking, tall, people with soothing voices.
Woosty’s still a Cat:
I meant only to inform, and never meant to do a chastenism…
However, your Malvina Reynolds video brought to my attention another of her songs, which ends something like:
Who’s going to save us from Rand? (Will the embed code work?)
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzK5OH06ShQ&w=640&h=390]
Given that every word has its one-and-only plain meaning, Rand is Rand.
@Roco: So I repeat: Rand can give all the lip service she wants to the idea of government, if her philosophy of morality or government does not admit a fair means of paying for it, then the philosophy is fundamentally broken. Tell us how she pays the cops and courts and army, the money has to come from somewhere. After all, in Rand’s world, the only reason anybody would become a cop or a soldier is if the pay (and life insurance) for risking their life was outrageous, right?