-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.
@Jim Smith: Looking forward to the future rather than backward to the past is your idea, not mine.
Fine; then I will stick with my idea, because I think your idea is simply silly. I don’t want the government to “grow” either physically or spiritually, I do not think governments should have personalities that are “repressed” or “defensive” or whatever mumbo-jumbo you are dealing. I don’t want my government to have a personality, PERIOD, I want it to do the jobs we give it competently and efficiently and nothing more.
I think all this “growth” and “outward looking” versus “inward looking” is just a load of fuzzy self-help pseudo-science psychology navel-gazing that means nothing but makes you feel good, that you are “growing” or whatever.
You think “growth” is positive in some spiritual sense, I do not think governments have anything corresponding to what is colloquially called the human spirit, so I see no sense in it.
Repression and defensiveness are human mental states that do not apply to governments. The government is far closer to a machine operating according to a complex set of rules than it is to a person with emotions and thoughts and personal memories. It is not introspective, assertive, defensive, repressed, or anything else.
You are trying to treat it like a person when it is not.
You say, The context has always been the same in that “outward looking” has been tied to growth as opposed to the inward looking “I” centered Rand philosophy.
What is it you want to GROW? The size of government? The spirituality of government? Why should it? Why shouldn’t it be just the right size to do its job and no more? Why would we want it to have anything as inexact, unpredictable and whimsical as a “spirit”?
Except then you say growth means the government should always be looking for new ideas and solutions. That makes no sense either, it has a job to do, it shouldn’t be experimenting with new ideas in getting that job done without our approval.
I want my government predictable and consistent, so I want it to operate according to written, established rules we citizens decide upon, without deviation.
Mike A.,
Yep. Seconded.
Jim Smith:
“Thus it is that one of the pure strokes of genius to come out of that Convention was a Constitution that managed to maintain majority rule, an indispensable part of republican government, while still confining the majority potential for tyranny. You would negate that genius with your idea of government as a tool wielded by a super-majority.”
I would have figured you an advocate for democracy.
It is time to move on.
The original topic on this thread was “Ayn Rand and Christianity.” There has been virtually no discussion of the topic. I noted early on that objectivism and Christianity are inherently incompatible. I have not seen a single objectivist post on that point. If it has been conceded, then it would appear that there is nothing more to discuss on the topic. Just wondering.
To Tony C.,
I first used the phrase in a post to Roco and within this context: “There is no growth in “I” centered philosophies because there is no looking outward towards expansion.“
You then picked up the phrase and posted it to me in this context: “Your criticism of this political / economic treatise was that there was no “growth” in it, or no “looking outward,” from which I inferred you thought these imprecise concepts actually mattered in the role of government or economics.
And I responded in this context: “A government should always be looking outward for new ideas and solutions. A government looking inward, “I” centered, becomes defensive and repressive. New ideas and solutions are growth.”
Now you write: “Since the phrase “looking outward” is so vague as to be meaningless, I imagine you can define it as anything you want it to be.”
The context has always been the same in that “outward looking” has been tied to growth as opposed to the inward looking “I” centered Rand philosophy.
You then say you prefer the term looking forward. This completely changes the meaning of looking inward to the “I” centered as opposed to the looking outward to growth. Looking forward to the future rather than backward to the past is your idea, not mine.
Finally you decide that the phrase looking outward is not only vague but also a coded phrase for something other than what I have said and that I also belong to some group that you don’t wish to learn about because they speak in code.
I belong to no group and I represent no group. The phrase within its context has remained constant and is easy to understand. There is no code.
As to the founding fathers vision you mentioned. Madison come to the Constitutional Convention thoroughly prepared. He knew the history of republics and had studied how they worked and how they failed. Based on those years of studying republics, he feared the potential of majority tyranny as a path to failure. Thus it is that one of the pure strokes of genius to come out of that Convention was a Constitution that managed to maintain majority rule, an indispensable part of republican government, while still confining the majority potential for tyranny. You would negate that genius with your idea of government as a tool wielded by a super-majority.
@Roco: To say it is due to Objectivism is a little shallow dont you think?
Did I say something was due to Objectivism? I’ve lost what the “IT” refers to here. I thought what I was saying was Rand’s philosophy was absolutely selfish to the point of sociopathy, and that was a good descriptive label for those that subscribe to it.
For the record, I am an atheist, and I also believe anybody that gets rich off of religion (like televangelists or the opulent beyond belief Catholic Church) is quite likely sociopathic as well.
I am not claiming Objectivism has any monopoly on sociopathy.
@Jim Smith: that appears to be looking outward after all.
Since the phrase “looking outward” is so vague as to be meaningless, I imagine you can define it as anything you want it to be.
As I said before, it means nothing to me, literally speaking. You are using a coded phrase that only has meaning for you and your group, whomever that may be; and I do not care to learn because I don’t like to speak in code, I like to be explicit and get my meaning across to strangers; as imperfectly as I may do that.
If anything, I would call it “looking forward,” which is the typical direction with which people indicate the future, even though the operation is usually “looking backward,” in the sense of analyzing the past and trying to identify directional trends in a series, or more specifically unexpected changes in trends that might need explanation.
Are you referring to both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when you speak of our founding fathers’ vision?
I am referring to what I have read of the writings of the founding fathers, period. That is not 100% of their writings, and it is undoubtedly far less than the amount read by just about any American attorney, but I would say it is still more than the average American.
I have considered the issues of mob rule, but I will point out the founding fathers still allow modifications to the Constitution (including the repeal of Amendments like the Bill of Rights) by a super-majority vote (of States, but they answer to their voting citizens).
I am not sure, which of my statements you are arguing with by asking this question. Are you trying to imply that I am mistaken, and the founders did not envision a servant government that answered to the people? I think there is every indication that is exactly what they wanted; that was the point of checks and balances, the rejection of a monarch, the entrustment of the purse to the directly elected representatives, the ability to impeach even the President, and on and on.
@Woosty: who is the ‘we’ that you speak of?
The citizenry that empowers (and pays for) their government.
…and how does ‘we’ then define evil?
By voting on laws that require a super-majority (say 2/3) to be passed into law and binding on everybody, with certain restrictions on the power of government over individuals requiring an even larger super-majority (say 4/5). The latter would be our Constitutional rights like Freedom of Speech (which can be stripped from our Constitution by a 3/4 Ratification of States in our system).
…and who imposes the ‘force’ that you speak of?
Law enforcement officers, courts, judges, jailors, as we have now; although perhaps with greater oversight or modern methods to reduce the amount of corruption and self-immunizing behavior.
How’s that Greenspan working out for you, “Roco”?
ROFLMAO
Tony C:
I have read that people do rationalize their selfishness with Objectivism. I disagree with that aspect of it.
But I have met more than a few liberals who are all about me, me, me as well, republicans too for that matter.
People use Christianity to control people, they also use it to prove they are better people/more Christian because they have financial success due to God’s favor.
To say it is due to Objectivism is a little shallow dont you think?
To Tony C.,
First you write: “I do not expect my tools to innovate and experiment with new ways to accomplish their job, I want them to perform their job as fast as possible without any loss of precision and with as little variance in either time or precision as possible.”
And then you write: “I would argue that one of the primary benefits of a good government is being able to hire expert help to spend full time researching and understanding emerging trends in order to anticipate problems, vet potential solutions, and present cogent explanations of all of that to the public; so they can decide what they want to do about it, either collectively or individually, either by compelling themselves with law or by voluntary compliance.”
Well, well, that appears to be looking outward after all.
Are you referring to both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when you speak of our founding fathers’ vision? Since many of them were disturbed by the shift of power from the Congress to the states under the Articles of Confederation, I will not waste time on that subject and instead move to the 1787 Constitutional Convention with one simple statement. The founding fathers working through the Constitutional Convention of 1787 managed to maintain majority rule, an indispensable part of republican government, while still confining the majority potential for tyranny.
You might want to consider the majority’s potential for tyranny in you vision of government as a tool wielded by the super-majority.
Tony C.,
“…we have to budget for which evils to address with force…”
I love this line….even though I’m not sure I agree with it…plus, who is the ‘we’ that you speak of? and how does ‘we’ then define evil? and who imposes the ‘force’ that you speak of?
plus, I will confess, I am a long way away from when I was learning about and ultimately rejecting Rands philosophy…but I always interpreted it to be addressed to a more personal level than to be so broadly imposed on a body politic. Nothing I have seen done by either party is justified by Rands ‘selfishicy’ other than that she seems to serve as a nifty excuse…after the fact.
And it was the GOP that drove the car into the ditch…the Dems did nothing to get it out and now wouldn’t it be nice if we all bought into Rands ideas and the GOP and DEMs ideas of Randian economic to get a new car….at the expense of the great unwashed…who are really the only clean ones out there in this crappy scenario but who cares…theres got to be someone to hang everything on….
@Roco: Attaching an accurate descriptive label to Rand’s philosophy is not name-calling just because the label carries negative connotations; the negative connotations are inherent in her philosophy. What is a defining characteristic of sociopathy is complete selfishness and a lack of concern for the well-being or emotions of anybody else. That is what Rand espouses; calling those that subscribe to her philosophy of selfishness sociopaths is merely descriptive, not insulting.
If you found that insulting, I presume that is because you don’t like your absolute selfishness being labeled as an undesirable or even mentally ill trait, even if it is.
Jim Smith:
You are wrong about Greenspan. But that doesnt matter, the proof is in the pudding. He did not follow a free market course, even if you can with the fed.
To Roco,
You offer more deflection by claiming that Greenspan was not that which he claimed to be.
It is time to face the truth without deflection for step #4 Aftermath/consequences will always appear.
“I am not the one that started calling people sociopaths.
You are a fool and are unwilling to see the truth of your lousy socialistic philosophy”
Roco,
Once again you prove my point. You started originally by calling all who disagreed with you collectivists, socialists, communists and fascists. That is as much a characterization as sociopath and very reasonably people responded by naming you what the philosophy you espouse calls those who disagree. Rand was heavily into this type of name calling.
I am not a socialist and the difference is I know what being a socialist means, whereas you don’t have the intelligence to understand and fall back on propaganda learned rote to present you rancid views. You are emotionally and debate-wise childish
as I could point out by a review of the name calling you’ve engaged in.
You see I am at base a rationalist and an iconoclast. I don’t believe in political philosophies per se, but in having a just society, with everyone given a chance for self-fulfillment.
Political philosophies and the sophistic nature of economic theories are really justifications for people to behave in the manner they deem correct. You for instance choose Rand as a hero, because you are a selfish egotist, who lacks compassion for your fellow humans. Thus you choose a “philosophy” that rationalizes your psychological deficiencies.
@Roco: Welcome to Objectivism.
Except I am not an objectivist; I make sure my work is never patented and will never be patented and is widely available free of charge with clear explanations of every detail needed to make it work; because I think that provides the greatest good to humanity.
Mike Spindell:
I am not the one that started calling people sociopaths.
You are a fool and are unwilling to see the truth of your lousy socialistic philosophy and all the damage it has done to human beings. You are pathetic and a fool. You are the one that has no human empathy becuase you promote that which is harmful to human beings.
How many poor people did you keep poor so that you and others like you had something to do? Seems to me your entire life was spent pimping poverty for your personal gain.
@Jim Smith: The tool you champion is incapable of anticipating change for it is designed to accomplish specific task/tasks. When that task is finished the tool is dormant.
No it isn’t, make anticipating change one of its tasks. A machine can do that; I’ve worked on machines that do that in industrial settings, and humans (working for the machine) can do it even better.
Anything people can do, the government can do by hiring people to do it. In fact that will be necessary, AI will not be up to the cognitive tasks of a diplomat negotiating for hostages any time soon.
The question is not whether the government can accomplish some task, the question is whether it should accomplish that task. I would argue that one of the primary benefits of a good government is being able to hire expert help to spend full time researching and understanding emerging trends in order to anticipate problems, vet potential solutions, and present cogent explanations of all of that to the public; so they can decide what they want to do about it, either collectively or individually, either by compelling themselves with law or by voluntary compliance.
The government should remain a servant and a machine; the government can do both of those things, acting as a clearing house for intelligence and dissemination, without making arbitrary decisions on how to act on the information.
I cannot refute an argument based on a dream as if it were reality.
Then why are you on this thread criticizing Ayn Rand?
I CAN refute an argument based on her dream as if it were reality; because I am a human being capable of processing hypotheticals and understanding logic. I have an imagination. I am in good company; the founding fathers spent years debating arguments based on their dreams of a country as if it were reality; and some version of those dreams became a reality.
Until then we must rely on the humans that populate our government institutions. If those people are “I” centered in their philosophies…
We don’t have to care what their philosophies are if they don’t get to make the policy decisions. We can rely on human intelligence to do a job; and the job is implementing the will of the people. We can fire the humans that cannot do that job without corrupting the will of the people with their own ideology or bigotry or prejudices, whatever those may be. We demand that of judges and public defenders and law enforcement already; and although we police it poorly, there is no plausible reason I can see it could not be policed vigorously.
I see government as a metaphorical machine, not a literal machine. We can arrange government with rules of interaction that lets it hire people, on our behalf, to provide us services. Government does not have to be a metaphorical independent person that can commit us to massive acts of its own volition; like three trillion dollars worth of wars.
The whole vision of our founding fathers, and what they were imagining and trying to create, was a government of the people and for the people, a servant government that had to answer to the people instead of a ruling government that dictated to the people.
They obviously failed to anticipate the future industrial revolution and the massive rivers of money it would create and the overwhelming forces of influence that would create; but it is easy enough to understand what they were trying to do, and I think my “imaginary government” is a reasonable modern approximation of their “imaginary government.”