-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.
Roco,
I am not sure someone who lives for greed can truly be considered a Liberal. By the way, Reagan would be considered a liberal by Teapublican standards.
rafflaw:
that other post without a name on it is for Buddha is Laughing.
rafflaw:
pretty much, free markets, gay marriage, abortion, etc. I am pretty sure you would probably only disagree with her on economics. Probably foreign policy as well. But not on war, she was very much against the Vietnam war, she would have been against going into Iraq. She also thought the Saudi oil fields should have been taken over our destroyed after they nationalized them.
She also didn’t care for Reagan.
Guess what, Rand did not like Reagan and she probably wouldn’t have liked either Bush or Obama and probably not Clinton either.
But you wouldn’t know that because you haven’t read anything she wrote.
Your shot to the head pretty much reinforces how totalitarian you really are. I always say scratch the surface …
But then that is what a sociopath would do, take people they dont agree with and shoot them. Real nice Mr. Stalin, nothing like telling the truth. Man you are some “liberal” and that people here think you are some kind of fount of all knowledge is truly scary.
It is just funny, so Mr. Man of the People is nothing more than a Marxist thug at heart. I always knew it.
You are a clown.
Roco,
Ayn Rand is a Liberal thinker? Yikes!
Did I mention that greedy shithead Clinton gets some of the blame for repealing Glass-Steagall too?
Yeah.
That’s the thing about greed and stupidity.
They’re non-partisan.
“Your assertion about her appealing to sociopaths is
ridiculoustrue.”That’s more accurate.
“You think
progressiveconservative laissez-faire trickle down economic thought brought to you by the Reagan/Bush cabal and protected by the sellout Obama is so great, look out side; gas prices going through the roof, food prices increasing, less freedom, high unemployment.”Even better still.
“Personally we of the laissez-faire free market thinking right could use a shot about now. Probably to the head.”
Oops. Now I’ve gone too far. Or have I? Nah. Since I’m going to the trouble to the speak the truth, I might as well speak all of it. The heart of our current economic problems lies squarely with Greenspan, Reagan and both Bush clowns. They drove the car into the ditch. And by not calling them out and failing to bring the blatantly criminal of the lot to justice, Obama the Center Right Lying Sellout has set the car on fire.
It is people like you who are to blame, “Roco”. Those who put profits over principle and over the common good who are responsible for the state of America today. Venal myopic selfish pigs the whole lot of you. So seriously? You don’t get to bitch about it, mmmmmmmkay greed boy. Well, you can I suppose. It is your right. However, it is the very pinnacle of comedy and hypocrisy all at the same time.
Enjoy eating your money.
Tony C:
She is being taken seriously now by philosophers. I am not hoping for some sort of miraculous reformation, she is only one of a large body of liberal thinkers (those who actually believe in human freedom).
Your assertion about her appealing to sociopaths is ridiculous.
You think progressive thought is so great, look out side; gas prices going through the roof, food prices increasing, less freedom, high unemployment.
Personally we could use a shot of free market thinking right about now.
Jim,
” Roco, you are writing words but have no real concept of their meanings.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Also, let me just say I’ve enjoyed your contribution to this and other discussions. Welcome aboard.
To Tony C.,
I am confused as I do not understand, in the context of this discussion, what you mean when you write: “I don’t think most theories of government demand personal growth; certainly mine doesn’t.” I am not going to answer that as I’m not certain how to address it. Please clarify it for me.
I am not a Christian any longer. Christianity was the vehicle used to introduce me to an early understanding of man’s place in the world. I followed the guidelines and eventually, and I believe naturally, grew out of the didactic teachings. I have no quarrel with your definition of good nor the premise that Rand rejected any sense of responsibility towards others.
I would, for the pure pleasure of continuing the discussion, ask you for your views on the concept of evil.
@Roco: People outside of the Objectivist community are just now beginning to take an academic look at her works.
Speaking as a member of the academic community and with personal ties to several sociologists (my sister is a sociologist) let me say on their behalf: That is a ridiculous assertion.
What do you think we are doing over here in the universities? Never mind, you obviously do not know us. But to put it in a vernacular you can understand, we ain’t in the business of letting shit slide for half a century. Sociologists are always interested in whatever society is interested in; and I see several hundred academic articles published on Atlas Shrugged (alone) back to the early 60’s, a few years after it appeared.
You are trying to add undeserved value to her work by pretending she is an undiscovered treasure, that the “smart” folks are just now catching up to you and realizing her genius, when in fact they have been criticizing her work (as good or bad, but mostly bad) for over fifty years.
Sociologists, economists, psychologists and political science professors aren’t sitting on their hands in that ivory tower, even the work of a simpleton, if it gains popularity, can provide fodder for the paper mill.
Nobody is going to suddenly “discover” Ayn Rand’s genius, the “academics” are not going to suddenly start endorsing her any more than they already do, there will be no Ayn Rand Renaissance.
But rest assured, you should have about the same level of company for the rest of your life. There is a steady stream of suckers and sociopaths being born every day, and we “academics” aren’t likely to find a solution to that problem for a very long time.
To Roco,
I did not state that Ayn Rand was a favorite of addictive personalities. I stated Ayn Rand has an appeal for addictive personalities. There is a large difference between the two statements and confusing them will lead you into misunderstanding rather than clarity.
There is no growth in “I” centered philosophies because there is no looking outward towards expansion. I will put that thought in a Christian setting, though one does not have to be a Christian to grasp the concept. You stated some of it in you last post but you failed to connect it to the your first paragraph.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. Both thoughts can only be sincerely pondered if one is looking outside oneself to others. Therein lies the growth that is denied to the “I” centered being.
You stated, “Faith in God is faith in God.” Now I will ask you, who and what is God?
Once again you stated “How do you get any deeper than that except to explore the many things the Gospels say about leading a good life” to which I answer, exactly. That is how you go deeper. And faith, if it is properly installed, will lead you deeper.
Roco, you are writing words but have no real concept of their meanings.
Religion is philosophy?
There you go making up the meaning of words again.
religion \ri-ˈli-jən\, n.,
1a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
philosophy \fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē\, n.,
1a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (a doctor of philosophy) (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought (the philosophy of war)
4a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
Religion is manifestly not philosophy by defintion. A religion can have a philosophy, but a philosophy does not require a religion and/or a supernatural force like a religion does. There are in fact many philosophies that reject the notion of the supernatural. The one you just admitted was a religion – objectivism – is one such philosophy (crappy as it is) that rejects the notion of the supernatural.
You don’t even know what words mean let alone have any consistency in your rationalizations around objectivism. First it’s a philosophy, then it’s a religion. Then again, you also think night is day. Which ever way the wind blows to make you feel good about yourself, eh sparky? As pointed out earlier, a lack of consistency is a hallmark of rationalization, not reason. Slap me down? You couldn’t slap you’re own cock down assuming you could find it, greed boy, so hands off my rooster unless you just enjoy getting spurred.
Don’t hate me because I’m smarter than you Roco/It’s All Good/Rae/Whatever Mask You’re Wearing Today. I am indeed smarter than you, but that’s beside the point. Hate me because hating others is the only thing you’re really good at aside from worshiping your own ego and rationalizing being a selfish and greedy person.
Now run along.
Or come back and get cudgeled some more.
Makes no difference to me.
Religion is philosophy.
I have never said there is anything wrong with having compassion for people. Nor have I ever said that helping people is wrong.
You make shit up like a child makes mud pies, except the child has something when he is finished.
“All who embrace it are emotionally immature and/or mentally ill themselves.”
You have got to quit projecting or get some professional help. I cant be your therapist anymore, I am sorry. I know you get some sort of fix out of this. I hope I have given you the medication you apparently need. But it is getting harder to see the level of ignorance you exhibit in your posts.
I didn’t comment on the induction thread so you could have your cock of the walk strut without getting slapped down. You really need to rethink your position. I’ll give you a couple of days but if you don’t modify your position I will have to comment to set you straight.
“But then I know a bunch who use it as a guide for life like you would the Bible or the Torah or the Quran, etc”
Then they are treating it like a religion, not a philosophy, and worshiping Ayn in stark contradiction to Rand’s own atheist views but in perfect alignment with the kind of thinking espoused by someone who tells a suitor out of favor “You have rejected me? You have dared to reject me? Me, your highest value?” Narcissistic self-rationalization looking for a home in a pseudo-religious fiction-based philosophy. Contradiction shouldn’t be a surprise in people like this. All of their empty lil’ lives are littered with their efforts to claim they are the heroes of the story when heroism isn’t possible without both compassion and altruism. All of objectivism is based on an inherently flawed and fictional view of human psychology and sociology. All who embrace it are emotionally immature and/or mentally ill themselves. There is no “rational” in Rand’s “rational self-interest”, just simple self-interest.
I have read Rand and did not like the taste.
Jim Smith:
I disagree that Rand is a favorite of addictive personalities or that there is no growth with her philosophy. It depends on who you are. I have met many people who take Rand on faith, I have met others who dont. I dont know many Objectivist who are addicted to drugs or alcohol. I know a bunch who are unhappy because they made the mistake of thinking all you need for great success is Rand’s philosophy. But then I know a bunch who use it as a guide for life like you would the Bible or the Torah or the Quran, etc.
Quite honestly, I dont understand how you can say that. Faith in God is faith in God. How do you get any deeper than that except to explore the many things the Gospels say about leading a good life, which is what a philosophy is all about.
Bottom line, it comes down to treating others as you wish to be treated or you could phrase it as that which is hurtful to you do not do to others. Beyond that there isnt much else to say. You can certainly learn new things and should and you should check the things you learn in relation to whatever philosophy you hold.
I have found in my many readings of other people that she takes a good many ideas from others. She enhanced those ideas and created what she thought was a unified philosophy. People outside of the Objectivist community are just now beginning to take an academic look at her works. I am sure there will be many criticisms and praise in the years to come for what she has to say.
@Jim Smith: I don’t think most theories of government demand personal growth; certainly mine doesn’t. I see zero value in ‘personal growth’ or religious belief. I believe in social liberty: The time people waste on religion is theirs to waste; and if they prefer to live in their mother’s basement and eat Cheetos and play Warcraft for the rest of their natural life, that is none of my business either.
The problem with Rand is her rejection of the premise that people are born with basic responsibilities to other people, which itself is founded in her completely false idea that if people just pursue their own self interest then the ‘greater good’ will somehow take care of itself, and if it doesn’t, then [by her definition] it was not good. In short, she redefines “good” to justify her own philosophy of unadulterated selfishness.
“Growth is always uncomfortable. One answer always leads to the next question.”
“Faith that is no longer tinged with apprehension is not really faith in the proper religious sense.”
“a continuing growth that is both uncomfortable and exhilarating.”
Jim Smith,
Amen to that, I can think of nothing to say to improve it.
Tony,
I don’t disagree with any of that. The fundamental distinction between crimes and torts is purely rooted in our monkey-brained sense of fairness in addition to reasoned differentiation between different kinds of acts and actors and their danger to society.