Posted on 07/20/2010 6:42:03 AM PDT by marshmallow
No philosopher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than the one Ayn Rand urges upon us.
"Yes, this is an age of moral crisis … Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley and the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality …. but to discover it."
Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but Ayn Rand's philosophical mouthpiece, John Galt, the protagonist of her principal novel, Atlas Shrugged. The "moral crisis" to which he refers is the conflict between altruism, which is radically immoral, and individualism, which provides the only form of true morality possible. Altruism, for Galt and Rand, leads to death; individualism furnishes the only path that leads to life. Thus, in order to go on living with any degree of authenticity, we must abandon the immoral code of altruism and embrace the vivifying practice of individualism.
Throughout the course of history, according to Ayn Rand, there have been three general views of morality. The first two are mystical, which, for Rand, means fictitious, or non-objective. The third is objective, something that can be verified by the senses. Initially, a mystical view reigned, in which the source of morality was believed to be God's will. This is not compatible either with Rand's atheism, or her objectivism. In due course, a neo-mystical view held sway, in which the "good of society" replaced the "will of God. The essential defect of this view, like the first, is that it does not correlate with an objective reality. "There is no such entity as 'society,'" she avers. And since only individuals really exist, the so-called "good of society" degenerates into a state where "some men are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires."
Only the third view of morality is realistic and worthwhile. This is Rand's objectivism, a philosophy that is centred exclusively on the individual. It is the individual alone that is real, objective, and the true foundation for ethics. Therefore, Rand can postulate the basic premise of her philosophy: "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A – and Man is Man."
An individual belongs to himself as an individual. He does not belong, in any measure, to God or to society. A corollary of Rand's basic premise is that "altruism," or the sacrifice of one's only reality – one's individuality – for a reality other than the self, is necessarily self-destructive and therefore immoral. This is why she can say that "altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value." On the other hand, individualism, cultivated through the "virtue of selfishness," is the only path to life. "Life," she insists, "can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action." Man's destiny is to be a "self-made soul."
Man, therefore, has a "right to life." But Rand does not mean by this statement that he has a "right to life" that others have a duty to defend and support. Such a concept of "right to life" implies a form of "altruism," and consequently is contrary to the good of the individual. In fact, for Rand, it constitutes a form of slavery. "No man," she emphasizes, "can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'" Moreover, there are no rights of special groups, since a group is not an individual reality. As a result, she firmly denies that groups such as the "unborn," "farmers," "businessmen," and so forth, have any rights whatsoever.
Making sacrifices for one's born or unborn children, one's elderly parents or other family members becomes anathema for Ayn Rand.
Her notion of a "right to life" begins and ends with the individual. In this sense, "right to life" means the right of the individual to pursue, through the rational use of his power of choice, whatever he needs in order to sustain and cultivate his existence. "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil." As Rand has John Galt tell her readers, "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence." Man's existence must stay in existence. This is the mandate of the individual and the utility of the virtue of selfishness. Non-existence is the result of altruism and careens toward death. Making sacrifices for one's born or unborn children, one's elderly parents or other family members becomes anathema for Ayn Rand. She wants a Culture of Life to emerge, but she envisions that culture solely in terms of individuals choosing selfishly, the private goods of their own existence. If ever the anthem for a pro-choice philosophy has been recorded, it comes from the pen of Ayn Rand: "Man has to be man – by choice; he has to hold his life as a value – by choice; he has to learn to sustain it – by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practise his virtues – by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality."
No philosopher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than the one Ayn Rand urges upon us. Man=Man; Existence = Existence; only individuals are real; all forms of altruism are inherently evil. There are no nuances or paradoxes. There is no wisdom. There is no depth. Complex issues divide reality into simple dichotomies. There is individualism and altruism, and nothing in between. Despite the apparent superficiality of her philosophy, Rand considered herself history's greatest philosopher after Aristotle.
******************************
Barbara Branden tells us, in her book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, of how Miss Rand managed to make the lives of everyone around her miserable, and when her life was over, she had barely a friend in the world. She was contemptuous even of her followers. When Rand was laid to rest in 1982 at the age of 77, her coffin bore a six-foot replica of the dollar sign. Her philosophy, which she adopted from an early age, helped to assure her solitude: "Nothing existential gave me any great pleasure. And progressively, as my idea developed, I had more and more a sense of loneliness." It was inevitable, however, that a philosophy that centred on the self to the exclusion of all others would leave its practitioner in isolation and intensely lonely.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is unlivable, either by her or anyone else. A philosophy that is unlivable can hardly be instrumental in building a Culture of Life. It is unlivable because it is based on a false anthropology. The human being is not a mere individual, but a person. As such, he is a synthesis of individual uniqueness and communal participation. Man is a transcendent being. He is more than his individuality.
The Greeks had two words for "life": bios and zoe. Bios represents the biological and individual sense of life, the life that pulsates within any one organism. This is the only notion of life that is to be found in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Zoe, on the other hand, is shared life, life that transcends the individual and allows participation in a broader, higher, and richer life.
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis remarks that mere bios is always tending to run down and decay. It needs incessant subsidies from nature in the form of air, water, and food, in order to continue. As bios and nothing more, man can never achieve his destiny. Zoe, he goes on to explain, is an enriching spiritual life which is in God from all eternity. Man needs Zoe in order to become truly himself. Man is not simply man; he is a composite of bios and zoe.
Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of resemblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as a statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.
The transition, then, from bios to zoe (individual life to personal, spiritualized life; selfishness to love of neighbor) is also the transition from a Culture of Death to a Culture of Life.
THE AUTHOR
Donald DeMarco is adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College & Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut and Professor Emeritus at St. Jerome's University in Waterloo Ontario. He also continues to work as a corresponding member of the Pontifical Acadmy for Life. Donald DeMarco has written hundreds of articles for various scholarly and popular journals, and is the author of twenty books, including The Heart of Virtue, The Many Faces of Virtue, Virtue's Alphabet: From Amiability to Zeal and Architects Of The Culture Of Death. Donald DeMarco is on the Advisory Board of The Catholic Education Resource Center.
Ayn Rand was, above all, a RATIONAL person. Communism, devout mindless religious fanaticism, racism, and compulsive socialism are ALL IRRATIONAL.
It's that simple, really. This country was founded by people that would rather fight to the death than accept a "ruling class". They saw it correctly as slavery.
Today, the country is populated with slave wannabee's. They call themselves progressive democrats. I call them old-fashioned plantation slaves. (or worse, actually...)
State atheism, the suppression or control of traditional religions, is necessary for the totalarian state that doesn't claim legitimacy from a god, since organized religions would compete for the loyalty of the people. Most people need some belief to fulfill them, and that role is normally filled by religion. Communist and other states take advantage of this by suppressing traditional religions and raising the state to the level of the god to be worshipped, creating a political religion. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, all gods of their state religions.
Remember, Buddhism doesn't necessarily have a god either. Buddha thought belief in a creator deity interfered with the path to enlightenment. So while these states may be technically atheist, they are also quite religious in nature.
Atheism is also not necessary for communism. In fact, religious communism has existed on a small scale in various movements for a long time. Remember, the original Plymouth colony was effectively communist, and so were the Diggers of England.
It’s a bad mistake logically to look at one woman who made herself miserable for whatever reason,,,and to conclude that her ideas were flawed.
Like many geniuses, they fly high in their field, and fall badly short in another. Condemning her ideas because of her personal misery would be like “proving” that the ideas of the Church were untrue, by pointing to a molester priest. Neither case of a wreck of a persons life proves a thing about the validity of their beliefs.
To cut to the chase on this: Rand’s philosophy cannot withstand the moral implications of something as simple and natural as having and raising children.
“Funny how an avowed athiest seems to be followed by so many “true believers”.
A very strong point,, especially in the 60s, and when she was at her zenith.
The process which, if not checked, will abolish Man goes on apace among Communists and Democrats no less than among Fascists. The methods may (at first) differ in brutality.
(Back to article)...
The transition, then, from bios to zoe (individual life to personal, spiritualized life; selfishness to love of neighbor) is also the transition from a Culture of Death to a Culture of Life.
Zoe, on the other hand, is shared life, life that transcends the individual and allows participation in a broader, higher, and richer life.
Examine what neighbor, what collective, what culture YOU decide to love or submit to...or what earthly entity...is not equal to but transcends...YOU the individual.
The Libertarian party and movement reflects this soullessness. It’s is mindless in it’s distain for goodness and humanity, imho. The absense of good is evil. There will be no vacuume.
Libertarians have awarded the Left total social and cultural power for the last thirty years. I observe it to be mindlessly anti-moral, anti-ethical and anti-human in practice. I see the evolved state of affairs in fascist America, where corporations dominate government and American life and government as the ultimate vision of Rand. It is pure materialism. It despises Christians because it is the opposite of what Jesus represented in humanity.
Sure it can stand the having and raising of children, unless you don’t love them i guess,,,,
You are making a common mistake. She was only against people being forced into service against their will. She would be against forced abortions in China, and against Lebensborn projects in Germany. Never saw anything where she was against a person who wanted children with someone they loved.
That's only if you don't consider the strong likelihood that Rand's entire philosophy began with her atheism.
Seen in that light, the tenets of Objectivism make a great deal more sense.
I believe that Rand started off (and ended) as an ardent atheist who nevertheless had a strong sense of moral imperatives.
She was not willing to give up her atheism, but she needed to justify morality as a set of "absolute" principles. In essence, she needed a way to create a moral system that yields the last six Commandments without having to deal with the troublesome first four.
Unfortunately for her, the axiomatic underpinnings of her philosophy do not withstand scrutiny -- even when tested by Rand's own standards they collapse.
For example, consider her statement, "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." Which sounds great, until you bring children into the mix.
Quite simply, Rand's philosophy cannot survive contact with the philosophical implications of living in a family.
But in the end, that obvious failure still traces back to her atheist assumptions.
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
***
All comes down to this - Who is your Lord? —
Is a person seeking his own way and will or the Lord's will and way.
The world, the enemies of Christ, seculars, humanists, new agers, satanists etc - they all seek their own will, they all do their own thing, they all do what is best for their self - that is their religion - Do what thou wilt! aliester crowley the beast himself.
Most of Rand’s critics have no idea what she actually said. Choosing to help friends, family, or complete stangers is in fact what most normal people want to do, it gives them personal satisfaction, and it is thus a selfish act, not “altruism”. Helping others by giving them things that you have stolen from the rightful owner is what she opposed. You can’t tell the difference between altruism and selfishness unless you analyze the thoughts that accompany the act.
If you are doing as you wish you may pat your self on the back for your good works, but I contend you wouldn’t be doing them unless you wanted to. Same with me, and I have always helped a lot of people. As I recall, Rand’s reply to the question of “What shall we do about the poor?” was “Nobody will stop you from helping them.”
It sometimes seems that all ideas of actual personal freedom will be rejected out of hand by the emotional non-thinkers of the world. This is what allows demagogues to impose tyrannies and inflict misery and death on millions.
Further, dying alone and broke does not invalidate one’s ideas. If it did, half the philosphers in history would have to be ignored.
So basically Rand’s philosophy is no more than the Pagan creed that “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“I see the evolved state of affairs in fascist America, where corporations dominate government and American life and government as the ultimate vision of Rand. It is pure materialism.”
If you ever actually decide to read some of her works, you should understand how utterly incorrect that statement is. A quick easy place for you to begin, would be her address to the Graduating class at West Point in the 70s. It’s easily found on the internet.
You must have overlooked the part where I said that she had a lot of great ideas. My issues are not so much with Rand; in some ways she was a tortured genius who evokes my sympathy. My problem is with the people who embrace her and her notions with a virtually religious like zeal, and then feel compelled to denounce religion and attack any person who has anything negative to say about her.
I agree with you in essence. Speaking at a personal level, her atheism helped shape her philosophy and, for her, was essential to it.
Objectivism, as a whole, is a solid philosophy; surprisingly mature and balanced. It’s the base structure that is it’s weakest point, and why I reject it as a lifestyle philosophy. But I think it offers a lot as an intellectual obstacle course.
When faced with a major decision or a major concept, I try to run my choices through several gauntlets to see which can emerge intact. Rand’s philosophy is one of those gauntlets I run them through. I sometimes reject the results of that particular run, but it almost always shows me any major flaws in my way of thinking.
“Altruism” as practiced by liberals is very similar to “enslavement”... True altruism makes the recipients stronger - not weaker. The fruit tells us the nature of the tree...
No, that is not her philosophy. I would say a better summation would be the old canard ‘The freedom of your fist ends at the point of my nose’.
Coercion and force is absoluted anathama to her philosophy and it is that respect of others that is the control point of her philosophy.
“What shall we do about the poor?” was “Nobody will stop you from helping them.”
Of course the questioner really meant, “what should i be allowed to FORCE you to do about the poor?”. Because the truth actually is, just as she sagely observed. Most people do almost nothing personally for the poor, but with great enthusiasm, they will band together in groups, and then force you to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.