I just finished reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. They’re very thought provoking novels. Ayn Rand wrote these books to explain and promote her personal philosophy of objectivism, which glorifies mankind and holds that man’s independence and happiness are the highest possible values.
Both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged left me with mixed feelings. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is certainly anti-Christian, and some of the content of her novels is inappropriate, but for all that, her ability as a writer makes her stories spellbinding. Her novels are unique in that they are very deliberate expressions of her philosophy of life. Many authors primarily seek to create great art or to capture timeless themes, plots, and characters on paper. Their beliefs and philosophies are a part of their work, but they don’t write in order to systematically persuade others to embrace an entire worldview. Ayn Rand is different. Her novels sacrifice nothing in terms of plot, characterization, or description, yet they also contain and extra measure of purpose that is, I think, comparatively rare in fiction.
What struck me about Atlas Shrugged, in particular, was its similarity to That Hideous Strength, by CS Lewis. It’s almost ridiculous to compare the two authors, because they write from completely different worldview systems, but still, they draw many of the same conclusions and present their ideas in many of the same ways.
Both Rand and Lewis decry the postmodern, or relativist, movement. One of the most contemptible characters in Atlas Shrugged is Dr. Pritchett, a philosopher who claims that meaning, reason, and morality are non-existent.
“Man? What is man? He is just a collection of chemicals with delusions of grandeur.”
“The purpose of philosophy is not to help men find the meaning of life, but to prove to them that there isn’t any.”
“Reason, my dear fellow, is the most naive of all superstitions. That, at least, has been conceded in our age.”
Toward the end of the book, when men like Pritchett control the United States government and are trying to force the few remaining “reasonable” characters to cooperate with the government’s socialistic economic policies, they argue that it is the “duty” of the prosperous to save the undeserving and the needy from their own folly. However, these men have no right to talk of duty, because they have denied the existence of standards. When a young student asks Dr. Pritchett the question, “By what standard?” he answers, “There are no standards.”
In the same way, CS Lewis in That Hideous Strength paints a picture of the destruction that results from abandoning absolutes. The evils that Ransom, Jane, Dimble, Ivy, and others must face in Lewis’ story exist because men have let themselves be fooled into denying that standards exist.
I’m amazed that both Rand and Lewis identify the same root that causes people to attack reason, morality, and every other essential concept that implies the existence of absolute standards. In the final chapter of Atlas Shrugged, Jim Taggart is forced to recognize the monstrous evil that has motivated him throughout the story:
“…in the moment when he, James Taggart, had found himself facing the ultimatum: to accept reality or die, it was death his emotions had chosen…he knew – he had sought the destruction of all existence…he was seeing his face as the face of a killer whom all men should rightfully loathe, who destroyed values for being values, who killed in order not to discover his own irredeemable evil.”
As John Galt says elsewhere in the novel, “Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal…”
CS Lewis comes to the same conclusion in That Hideous Strength. An elite group of scientists whose goal, ostensibly, is “progress,” become, instead, enemies of mankind. Mark Studdock asks Dr. Frost, “The last two wars, then, were not disasters on your view?” To which Frost responds, “On the contrary, they were simply the beginning of the programme…” Ultimately, Frost comes to see death as the “cure [to] the illusion of being a soul.”
Despite their differences, these writers saw that, in a very real sense, death is both the motive and the cause of relativism. After all, when we purposely eliminate feelings, ethics, absolutes, belief in the “self,” and purpose, what is left of mankind? Something that might as well be dead, I think.
There are many other similarities. For example, Rand and Lewis both deny that a grey, dour, hopelessness is what humans have a right to expect from life. These authors celebrate joy, life, and fulfillment as not only desirable, but also attainable.
CS Lewis chose to believe that God is the standard without which men cannot live. Ayn Rand, however, claimed that man, in and of himself, is the standard. They agreed that a standard is necessary in order for life and joy to exist, but they disagreed about the source of that standard. Even though that is a significant disagreement, I found the extent of their agreement to be very refreshing. It’s interesting to read a book by a non-Christian who saw the threat of postmodern thought as clearly as the most perceptive of Christian thinkers.
29 comments:
Good analysis. It's very interesting to compare the points of agreement between Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis, of all people!
I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but I've had three different people bring up the novel in conversation recently, and I've been wanting to read it. You're contributing to bumping it closer to the top of my reading list. :-)
I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but never That Hideous Strength (although I need to.) I also found Ayn's point of view very thought provoking. You said it very well. Ayn got a lot of things right in her novels and portrays these things in an engaging way. We shouldn't let other people define who we are and what we think is right, but she fails to recognize that a "self sufficient" man can't be the definition of himself either. Great analysis (and your laughter quote in the next post is excellent too.)
Reading your post I can see that you have put thought into your reasoning and I find it very engaging.
I would however like to comment on your conclusion - that absolutes are what Rand and Lewis hold and have in common.
On the surface religion purports to be based on absolutes, standards. A more close examination reveals that religion is actually just as subjective as relativists. Holding the same premise, they are two sides of the same coin. Relativists proclaim there are no standards and therefore use whim or feelings as their "truth". A Religion can have no objective basis in reality since it leaves that for the supernatural and as such everything must be taken on faith, i.e., dogma (absolutes). However, because the mystic gives up this world for the next he cannot rationally justify his dogma and the veneer of absolutes gives way to his whim or feelings. This is one reason Rand saw no good in religion and she realized that mystics were simply the other half of the same coin.
If you were to go deeper still, in metaphysics Rand derives absolutes from the nature of reality, i.e., the law of identity (A is A), with existence as primary. If we know that entities do not act contrary to their identity (causality) we will eventually get to an objective standard of reference using reason as our guide. The mystic instead substitutes consciousness as the primary which in turn gives identity to existence. This is the basis for feelings given "truth" to reality and why dogma is really just blind whim.
I wanted to relate this to you in response to your post because I did not want any confusion or blurring to occur when it comes to understanding Rand's theory of knowledge. I may have laid it on thick here, but hopefully it encourages you to explore more of Rand's unique philosophy.
Michael,
I really appreciate the insight from someone who knows more about Ayn Rand and objectivism than I and who evaluates things from a different perspective. Thanks for the comment!
I was thinking about your statement that, "Religion can have no objective basis in reality since it leaves that for the supernatural and as such everything must be taken on faith." It seems like you’re assuming that the “natural” is the sum total of reality, whereas the “supernatural” has no part in it. As a Christian, that is precisely the sort of assumption that I reject. Were your assumption true, I would give a lot of credence to your argument, but as it is, I feel that your comment begs the question by presupposing that which is the actual issue. Our discussion must center on whether or not the supernatural can be considered reality before it can move to the question of religion being irrational.
Again, Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism is quite new to me, so I value your thoughts very much. Many thanks.
Once again your observations are very astute. The very nature of reality must be the starting point for any discussion on questions about our lives. To have certainty in what you're saying, you have to know where you're coming from and must be able to state that openly.
To say, that which is the supernatural, other-worldly, other dimension is not a part of reality, is merely an assumption would be to ignore the very concept that gives meaning to these words.
Since existence is primary, we define existence as all that which is in the universe. Any attempts to define concepts which hold no validity in nature is defined as being "above nature", i.e., super-nature. Because of this, faith, the universal aspect of all religions, makes claim to the non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing. What is the supernatural, if not everything which is unnatural, i.e., if A is A then the supernatural cannot be natural, A is not non-A. In any honest philosophical inquiry you must define your terms and keep them separate.
Like Ayn Rand said, "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises, you will find that one of them is wrong."
I love that quote! One of my biggest take-aways from Atlas Shrugged .
I’m definitely not trying to get sneaky with definitions and semantics. Sorry if I was a bit unclear. =)
My position is more upon these lines:
I hold that the super-natural does exist, is a part of reality. I am not saying that the super-natural is natural (A is non-A), but that reality encompasses both the natural and supernatural.
It seems to me that you are assuming that the reality and the natural are one and the same, leaving no room for the supernatural to exist. If this assumption is true, then religion is obviously condemned to the realm of the non-rational. However, this is the assumption that I would challenge. The supernatural is as real as the natural. God may be a non-sensory being (Christianity holds that He is invisible), but His non-sensory nature doesn’t classify him as “irrational,” unless one first assumes that all that is non-sensory is also irrational.
Your argument that religion is relative because it relies on the supernatural rests on an assumption that you haven’t yet supported. You could be right…it just remains to be seen.
To me it seems as if it does come down to one's use of definitions, whether you meant to or not, that's just the nature of philosophic discussions. That's not to say that philosophy as such is sneaky and underhanded, as I can understand you are not either. It just means that philosophy subsumes a wide range of ideas (in fact the entirety of man's knowledge) that structure is demanded and must be adhered to on principle. In our case it is the nature of reality that must be made clear since it is made your main contention.
A cursory examination of the word reality reveals its meaning to deal with that which is real. The following I simply got from dictionary.com
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact
I believe that the third describes it the most broadly without distorting its meaning with the fourth emphasizing its objectivity. This definitions illustrate that reality has a very precise and delimiting usage. Reality has identity, or in other words existence exists, existence is identity, and consciousness is identification.
"It seems to me that you are assuming that the reality and the natural are one and the same, leaving no room for the supernatural to exist." That is indeed what my premise is and existence is my justification and warrant that bears this out. There has been no basis provided for the supernatural in reality and there never will be (due to the very nature of the supernatural). Otherwise there wouldn't be a word "supernatural" and we'd be living alongside fairies, Santa Claus, and parallel universes.
So when you state that reality is the natural and the supernatural at the same time you are in fact saying A is non-A because reality is nature, i.e., the natural. There can be no other. Nature and super-nature have completely different identities and infer completely different metaphysics. One is the rational the other, irrational.
I also must take exception to one implicit statement you relate. "Your argument that religion is relative because it relies on the supernatural rests on an assumption that you haven’t yet supported." If you can now agree with my arguments above then you will see that religion rests on the supernatural and not reality. I shouldn’t have to prove this fact because theologians make no qualms with such assertions, they proclaim it loudly. However, when trying to validate religion this contention rests on the mystic. As a rule of logic demands, the onus of proof rests on the shoulders of those who state a positive. You cannot prove a negative statement. If I may make a recommendation on this subject I suggest anyone pick up the book Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith. It provides a comprehensive analysis of atheism and a rational rejection of religion and faith using arguments related to those I’m discussing here.
Along the lines of all of this is one of the worst condemnations of religion as Ayn Rand saw it. From the 25th Anniversary Introduction to The Fountainhead:
“Religion’s monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. “Reverence” means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one’s knees. “Sacred” means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.
But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man’s dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.
It is this highest level of man’s emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.”
Your definition of reality looks good. From there, though, I’m not sure that it follows that the natural is the sum total of reality. Are you saying the criterion for existence is that something be empirically verifiable, or able to be perceived by the senses? That, again, is an assumption which you have not supported, and one with which I would probably disagree.
I’m familiar with the atheistic argument that the burden of proof rests on the Christian (I haven’t read George Smith’s book, but I’d like to). I think that’s an oversimplification of the issue, though. The issue isn’t so much a question of whether or not God exists as it is a clash between two worldview systems: in this instance, Christianity and atheism/objectivism. Both systems make positive assertions, and both are required to submit positive support. The burden of proof is not one-sided.
That’s kind of a non-relevant point, though. We’re just talking about whether or not a rational person can consider the supernatural to be a part of reality. I’m not really trying to prove that the supernatural exists (though I believe it does), just that it’s a legitimate possibility.
The assumption that reality is that which is perceived by the senses is in fact not an assumption at all but rather a logical consequence (barring all other means of knowledge as irrational) that is dependent on what Objectivism claims to be the three primary axioms.
Existence. Identity. Consciousness.
To quote Rand, an axiom is "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." (Atlas Shrugged)
To illustrate a little bit more the validity of an axiom and its application in reality, I quote again from Atlas:
"'We know that we know nothing,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge—‘There are no absolutes,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute—‘You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.” [emphasis added]
From this it can be understood that proof of reality rests on the very supposition of reality itself. Also my previous comment shows how we can see that nature is synonymous with reality. To talk of the supernatural as part of reality presupposes its existence even though the nature of reality as identified by the axioms of Objectivist metaphysics excludes such a possibility. So as a consequence, it should be considered irrational to support any statement along the lines of the supernatural being a legitimate concept having existential substantiation.
As an aside I would also point out that the metaphysical argumentation against the supernatural is also supported further with reference to epistemology, man’s means of acquiring knowledge and its validity. I won’t get into that since it is not a part of the immediate discussion. I can only point to Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God for further explanation on this topic.
Another aside, the onus is on the theist. For what is theism attempting to prove? That a supernatural being exists and that the means of this knowledge is through faith. Atheism on the other hand puts forth no such claim. It is merely the absence of belief in a supernatural being. This is the distinction between a positive and negative assertion. Of course there are arguments supporting the atheist’s stance, but this is merely secondary to the fact that it starts with the absence of any evidence. If the burden of proof was on the side of a negative statement, how does one go about proving that a bug didn’t eat a hole in a leaf? You don’t. Instead you present an argument for what could have done that and if you can prove it, that it was a bug. The same goes for theism. The theist cannot put forth an assertion and then walk away demanding the atheist to prove its invalidity.
Michael, I'm sorry I'm not keeping up w/responses very well. It's bad form, but I'm in a little time crunch from now until I graduate.
Anyway, it's amazing that we agree on so much. The critique of relativism is so refreshing.
I think you're going to have to help me understand objectivism, because I'm not seeing the impact of your argument about axioms on my worldview. (Sorry. I must be a little bit dense.)
So - you're saying the proof for an axiom is found in the futility of attempting to deny it?
That makes sense. How exactly does an axiom differ from an assumption? I generally use the two words interchangeably.
I wouldn't argue that the objectivist axiom about the nature of reality is untrue , just that it is too narrow.
You said that, "to talk of the supernatural as part of reality presupposed its existence..." That may be, but in the same way, to talk of the supernatural as though it were categorically excluded from reality is to presuppose its nonexistence. I'm seeing that we both have assumptions about the nature of reality. This doesn't necessarily leave us at an impasse, but neither does it make your position the more rational, by default. We are both of us resting on assumptions.
This is where I get a little bit confused - how does an axiom differ from an assumption, and how does that effect your argument?
I wouldn't discount yourself in the capacity to understand concepts that can be complex at times. It just means that you're actually making the attempt to grasp those concepts; unlike the many other people you stumble across along the internets.
Does one prove an axiom? Not in the sense of scrutiny attributed to a mathematical proof. Its validity is verified/necessitated (proven if you must) by the fact that all other knowledge or means of knowledge rests on its validity. It is the ultimate truism. But in the sense in which I think you mean it, yes. To engage in a debate about existence axiomatic nature would be futile.
As for your main question about assumptions. I believe the difference between an axiom and an assumption is that an assumption implies that it could have been otherwise. An assumption could be right/wrong, an axiom precludes such chance.
When the claim that the natural and supernatural can be taken as both equal or even the supernatural as a possibility, it introduces a form of skepticism in all other fields. This is in fact what you are claiming when you state, "but in the same way, to talk of the supernatural as though it were categorically excluded from reality is to presuppose its nonexistence."
In actuality it is because I know the supernatural to be an impossibility that I excluded it from any rational inquiry. Because of the axiomatic nature of existence to entertain any other possibility would be self-defeating.
Also don't mistake a presupposition as such to be wrong. To presuppose something depends upon the context of what you're supposing. Because you suppose a supernatural existence and I it's nonexistence doesn't mean that both suppositions are equal. This might be what is causing the skepticism. You must go back to the supernatural's nature and see why its existence would be a contradiction in terms and as such an impossibility. Of course to see the contradiction you must understand the nature of existence first. Which of course brings us back again to the fact that it is axiomatic.
Hopefully this hasn't been all ramblings and makes some cohesive argument.
Yes, thank you. It makes much more sense now.
(If you ever want to continue this discussion over email, you can just send me a message: rhetoricalresponse@gmail.com.)
You say an axiom is "proved," though not in the mathematical sense, when it is demonstrated that a sensical view of reality depends on its being true. I wonder, if for the purposes of this discussion, we could use the words "axiom" and "presupposition" interchangeably, because your definition of an axiom is what I mean by a presupposition (at least in this context).
If your axioms are true, then yes, religion becomes untenable. If my basic axioms are true, then your position is in equal trouble. It seems like you're so fully convinced that your position is correct that you view my position as inherently irrational.
However, my position is only irrational given the truth of your axioms (and vice versa). And the truth values of these axioms, while not formally provable, is highly debatable. So, for us to progress, I think two things would have to happen:
1) We'd both have to agree, for the sake of argument, to assume the reasonableness of one another's axioms.
2) We'd have to follow our axioms to their logical ends (as best we can), and see which set of basic premises leads to contradiction and difficulty, and which leads to a unified, consistent view of life.
I've taken a stab at supporting my own axioms here - http://rhesponse.blogspot.com/2006/06/proving-un-provable.html. I wrote this a while ago, and I know it is rough. If you find the time to read it, it may make my position clearer.
One more thought: I think you might enjoy the work of Francis Schaeffer (Christian theologian, apologist). Your method of argumentation reminds me quite a bit of his, and you'd appreciate his critique of postmodernism. The only Ayn Rand books I've read are The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but I'd be happy to read any other book of your recommendation to help me better understand your position. Would you consider reading Schaeffer's The God Who Is There? (I'm sure you have many other things to do!)
I also hope this post is in some ways cohesive. =) I'm really enjoying this discussion.
I finished this great book (The FountainHead) today but I have many simple questions to be answered which I couldn’t answer myself. This is my first philosophical book so please help me grasp the matter in a better way…
1). Why did Dominique get married with Peter and then Wynand if she was in love with Roark?
2). What was the exact role of Toohey in this whole drama? Was he a villain?
3). At one time, Wynand was a very close friend of Roark. He used to take all the major decision of Banner himself. Suddenly things got changed (Even before the incident of $5000 ring) and his behaviour towards his life was completely changed? WHY….?
4). Is it really practical to live like Roark in this world given you are not an extremely talented person like him?
Anon it's encouraging to see you interested in Rand's philosophic ideas and that you were able to identify some key events in the novel that explain its theme.
As for your specific questions I think this site for students about Ayn Rand's novels would be able to answer your questions more thoroughly than I.
Karen I am in the midst of reading your post you cite. I think there might be some confusion that still lingers on the distinction of what is an axiom.
From your post: "I’d like to define the word presupposition. Philosopher Ronald Nash writes that presuppositions are 'beliefs that we accept without support from arguments or evidence.' They’re assumptions, in other words. By definition, they can’t be proven."
This in essence is faith with a new name.
If this is the meaning you ascribe to a presupposition then no you cannot use it interchangeable with an axiom. Perhaps the use of mathematical proof scenario was misleading. I only meant to use that to say that axioms can't be thought of as if you were trying to prove a triangle is congruent to some other triangle (ah, the memories of geometry). The pre-accepted validity of an axioms is needed to perform a proof and make it intelligible.
And so, because of these self-validating axioms, one has to accept them to engage in any rational discourse with one another. This is not a matter of trumping one's intellectual opponent it is merely the recognition that logic, the art of non-contradiction, is key for knowledge to be valid. So as a consequence it would be futile to accept any "non-rational axioms" (such thing being a contradiction itself) such as theistic presuppositions since they have no basis in reality. And so because of that I could not ignore all that prior and concede the argument to some notion of "progress" in our discussion.
So while I have to disagree with the use of the word presuppositional as an axiom, I will peruse your cited post to see what you have to say.
I, in turn, will re-read what you've posted about the nature of axioms.
I suspect I'll come to the conclusion that what you regard as proven rests on assumptions which seem self-evident to you....
But that's premature of me.
This is being very helpful to me. Thanks for the discussion.
Although I am coming to this late...this discussion is amazing!
I'm wondering though, (in my naivity) how many dimensions were discovered when Ayn Rand was alive. Are we up to about 13 or 14 now? Would this not make the definiton of nature/reality constantly changing? What if God exists in a dimension that has not yet been discovered or observed by our limited senses?
Just a random thought...thanks!
Thanks so much for your post. I've just finished "That Hideous Strength" and felt the same similarity to "Atlas Shrugged". In many respects it's not a contradiction (Rand did not believe in them!) because she was terribly interested in morality, and so is Lewis. She also had great respect for religion because it has been historically a foundation for making sense of one's place in the world, although she came to form a much different philosophy herself.
Yes, the non-absolute as an evil is present with both authors; the 'man-worship' is there; the 'bright, shining, joyous existence; the acclaim for clear reason. I think Rand must have read Lewis, perhaps even admired him, despite their differences.
I am through chapter six of Atlas Shrugged and am struck now by the similarity that I see in Rand and Lewis. I did a search through the comments on this post but did not find any reference to "The Abolition of Man". It is Lewis' non-fictional counterpart to "That Hideous Strength". The book pre-dates "Atlas" by about 15 years. If the topic of this post interests you, I strongly recommend reading it.
As I listened to Professor Pritchett at the party and his conclusion that all that we have left is instinct, I can't help but think that Rand read Lewis' "Abolition"; for that is near the heart of what Lewis concludes will be man's attempt to liberate himself from absolutes.
That last phrase shld have read:
"for that is near the heart of what Lewis concludes will be THE RESULT OF man's attempt to liberate himself from absolutes."
I recently reread Lewis's "That Hideous Strength," then read Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. I find myself much more in Lewis's camp than in Rand's, but Rand makes a good ally against the relativist movement.
Just some additional observations:
I, too, was struck by how similar in thought Lewis and Rand were in their defense of rationalism. They were giants.
Wouldn't it have been interesting to get Lewis and Rand together in a pub and let them have at it?
Failing that, wouldn't it be great to read a critique by Lewis of 'Atlas Shrugged'? I'm not aware of one...
Failing that, read 'Mere Christianity' to see how Lewis dismantles the argument that religion is irrational because it is concerned with the supernatural.
Note that Lewis was an atheist for roughly half his life. Read 'Surprised by Joy' to see how he came to Christianity.
Joy is a theme running through 'Atlas Shrugged'. It is also a theme running through Lewis's work.
The first 1000 pages of 'Atlas Shrugged' is 90% an attack on anti-relativism, then John Galt's 60 page speech is 90% an attack on religion. While reading Galt's speech, where Rand summarizes the philosophical arguments that were played out by characters in the book, I was struck by the lack of characters that illustrated her religious views. Maybe she didn't feel able to write them?
Rand dismisses all religion as mysticism. While the Eastern Orthodox tend toward mysticism, it is a fallacy to assume that all Christians are mystics. Interestingly, Lewis was the furthest thing from a mystic.
By simplistically dismissing all religion as mysticism, Rand cuts herself off from a great body of rational thought on religion, of which Lewis was one of the great recent apologists.
I was going to lift up Lewis's 'Abolition of Man', but I see that this has been done earlier, so I'll just echo that it's a must read for Rand fans. Also, 'That Hideous Strength' was the third book in Lewis's "Space Trilogy."
They were giants, though IMO Lewis stood head and shoulders higher.
I can't help wondering if, at the end of 2008, we are witnessing the world that Rand wrote about in 1957 coming to pass?
You know, I have a great admiration for C.S. Lewis & Ayn Rand both! I am a Christian yet I read Rand's work more and more. I think she makes the best argument against all of the Nietzsche, Hume, and Kantonians arguments. However, I realize her distaste for religion, in and of itself. But I can't help to notice if you read her non-fiction books, she gives a lot of credit to many religious people. I think Michael, along with Leonard Peikoff, really downplay that. I know Mrs. Rand would hate this but I don't see why Objectivist views are not compatible with religious views. I agree with Mrs. Rand, the three axioms of knowledge are existence, consciousness, and identity. To me, this in no way, says that God does not exist. I agree with Mrs. Rand. It is those three ways in which is the starting point for knowledge. Mrs. Rand did, however, believe something fallacious, which is that the universe has always existed. I am in complete agreement with Mrs. Rand on terms of epistemology i.e. the means of knowledge. I do not see how this makes it seem like God does not exist just because God does not exist in the realms of JUST nature. Like I said, if you read a lot of Rand's non-fiction books, she criticizes atheists more than Christians. She's somewhat sympathetic towards Christians (to deny this is silly, seeing as one of her main influences was St. Thomas Aquinas). She often quotes religious folks. You need only to look at her book Philosophy: Who Needs It to see all of these examples I talk of. One more thing, I do not believe that all knowledge is gained by God. If it was, what then, would be the point of creating (or evolving) us with a brain? This view is consistent with Aquinas, as well.
Secondly, I do not see why her ethics are anti-religious either. Egoism is not the opposite of even what Jesus taught. Rand does not denounce charity. She, instead, encourages it. She even acknowledges that the church helps a lot with charity. Even St. Thomas Aquinas thought selfishness was necessary. To be distinct, Mrs. Rand saw self-sacrifice as evil i.e. altruism. Now, many people think that if I jump in front of a bullet to save my wife's life, that is self-sacrifice. But Mrs. Rand points out that is contrary to what she believes. If I value my wife more than myself (she does stress the importance of having self-esteem) than it was not a sacrifice to throw myself in front of the bullet. I think this is a perfect example of Jesus Christ. Christ didn't violate the ethics of Rand! I love thinking about that and how compatible they are. Christ did not sacrifice Himself for us, the reason it was not a sacrifice was because He values our lives!
In conclusion, I just don't see why there should be any quarrel between Objectivists & Christians. If anything, Christianity enhances the meaning of objectivism. It gives the objectivist a meaning other than productivity in life. Or simply just to live happy & die.
Michael,
It is untrue that religion is subjective. Seeing as there are clear ethics stated in the Bible, we either choose to obey them or not. It is not subjective to "whims" or "feelings". It does not say, "thou shalt not kill..unless you feel like you've been done wrong"
It says clearly, "thou shalt not kill". Of course a religious person may try to bend it to his own definition, however, that does not invalidate that it's not ethical. Just because he interprets it his way does not mean that it is subjective. And if that is the case, a superficial look at objectivist ethics could easily be bent & then we could say the same about objectivist ethics. If someone skimmed through Ayn Rand then found selfishness it taking other peoples money, would you admit that Rand's views were subjective to that person? Or would you say, "wait a minute, Rand would not have approved of STEALING to get money."
I think the answer is obvious.
I realize that is a take on the ethics so now let me talk about epistemology of Rand & why I think it's perfectly compatible with religion. First, I do not arrive at my truth on mere whims of faith or feeling. I look towards the bible. Before you say that is only using faith, we can verify the bible from evidence. Archeological evidence coincides with the bible, so we know the bible has truth in it. From there, it is no longer just "faith". Secondly, I have no problem acknowledging that existence exists, consciousness is how I know I exist, and everything has an identity. Given the law of contradiction as a means to knowledge, I see no contradiction between the bibles account of existence & Rand's epistemology. Secondly, the bible is not being written today. What I mean by that is the bible as a means of truth, does not mean that truth is relevant to today. I don't need to look to the bible to know that the twin towers collapsed. The bible is finite and is not being added on to every second. It is not the only way to acquire truth. I agree, again, that logic can show the truth (as long as we start on a sound premise).
I can't help but to think of Descartes when you said that "The mystic instead substitutes consciousness as the primary which in turn gives identity to existence. This is the basis for feelings given "truth" to reality and why dogma is really just blind whim."
When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." And Rand properly corrected him, "I am therefore I'll think."
You say that it is the basis of feelings given truth to reality.. I beg to differ. Many Christian's disregard Descartes philosophy. Including me. I agree with just about everything Rand says and I am still a Christian. I realized a long time ago that "feelings" are misleading. Which is why I've come to the conclusion that God exists. Call me irrational if you will but in doing that, you're calling Objectvism irrational because that is my belief in which coincides with Christianity.
I just read "The Fountainhead" and am a big fan of Lewis. While reading the speech that Toohey makes to Keating near the end of the book I was amazed at how much Toohey sounded like Screwtap. I hadn't thought about the similarities to "That Hidesous Strength" until reading this blog.
I would suggest that when two great minds with very different world views converge like this we have an indicator that light has been shined on truth.
BR
Ayn Rand's marginal notes on "The Abolition of Man" are a testament to the solidity and logical consistency of Lewis's work because she completely missed the point and could only make ad hominem attacks from within her own little egotist worldview which probably never even occurred to Mr. Lewis. In a passage in which he concedes to a socialist point of view just for the sake of argument, Rand interprets him as dogmatically and wholeheartedly supportive of socialism. He criticizes a final corrupt step of a future "science" (which would then belong only in quotes) of the exact same kind Rand describes as the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged, and she interprets it as opposition to all of applied science.
One interesting actual quote of hers and how I think Lewis would have responded to it:
Rand: So Bacon is a "magician" --but Christ performing miracles is, of course, a spectacle of pure, rational knowledge!!!?
Lewis: Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
If I were to criticize Rand's philosophy in her books by saying that she only wrote them in order to make money, and claims that this refuted her, I would be making the same kind of fallacy she made in her approach to the Abolition of Man.
Love this! I just was finishing Atlas Shrugged and thought, "Wow, this is so much like That Hideous Strength!" So I did a Google search on the two and found this site!
Aside from the philosophical consistencies, there are many narrative ones, too. The State Science Institute is a stand-in for NICE. And both books climax with a disastrous banquet of the world's would-be leaders.
I'll conclude by asking this question: Having read both authors, which would you rather want for a neighbor? For a spouse? For a friend? Whose life, likewise, better testified to the true joy both authors claimed their worldviews could provide?
The answer to both questiosn, beyond doubt, would seem to be Lewis. I have awesome respect for Ayn Rand's mind, but I shudder at the thought of having to live in a world populated by her disciples.
But Chris, you are living in a world populated by her disciples, and Jesus' disciples and Hitler's disciples, etc. I'm just finishing Atlas Shrugged and, having been born in 1954, find it an outrageously prophetic portrayal of my 57 year reality. Putting the "religious" argument aside for the moment, her targeted industries, i.e. the railroad (which was nationalized (Amtrak), the steel industry (which virtually does not exist in US) and the fuel industry have been decimated by lobbiests and government backscratchers making deals with heirs of those who knew how to work. I grew up in a steel town; my father was a crane operator. That beautiful, prosperous town is now inhabited by 90% welfare recipients and is a dangerous place to go. I worked there as a Social Worker...not the kind in ATLAS, but a person who said, "Yes, I will help your family this time; if you ever come back, it must be for a job because the Bible says, "if any would not work, neither should he eat; if your children starve, you have starved them. Yes, I did google "Frances Schaefer on Ayn Rand." I studied at L'Abri in the 70's and was curious to read his comments. I likened much to C.S. Lewis, but I had just finished reading Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's GULAG ARCHIPELAGO and found the similarities remarkable. Solzhenitsyn's non-fiction/Rand's fiction...both Russian who witnessed the embriotic development of socialism to the birth of communism, resulting in the brutal death of a nation. Both warning the United States of America that we are on the same slippery slope. I read Solzhenitsyn's FIRST CIRCLE in the 70's and encourage Rand followers to spend time reading her peer and fellow citizen of Russia. What A.R. wrote about the farmer was an exact representation of the reality of what A.S. wrote as his experiential reality in Russia. He from behind the Iron Curtain, she in the comfort of the U.S. He was a great scientist who was arrested and imprisoned, along with a multitude of other great minds, and required to use his mind for the "good of the people" at a secret place the prisoners called archipelagoes. Has anyone out there also read Solzhenitsyn's works and made this comparison? As far as the "religion" aspect...she was a brilliant woman who had not yet been enlightened by the Holy Spirit of God to a spritual reality. Even her society does not know in those last moments whether or not that relationship was sealed. Reading Galt's speech,"Nothing can direct the process but his own judgment, Nothing can direct his judgment but his moral integrity," I wrote in the margin, "Brilliance sans an encounter with the Holy Spirit of God." She gives us the most lucid, incredible depiction of the conflict between capitalists and socialists that we will find today. That is why her sales soar when the Dem's are in office.
able. Solzhenitsyn's non-fiction/Rand's fiction...both Russian who witnessed the embriotic development of socialism to the birth of communism, resulting in the brutal death of a nation. Both warning the United States of America that we are on the same slippery slope. I read Solzhenitsyn's FIRST CIRCLE in the 70's and encourage Rand followers to spend time reading her peer and fellow citizen of Russia. What A.R. wrote about the farmer was an exact representation of the reality of what A.S. wrote as his experiential reality in R
rabbit dildos
Gold Coast Escorts
Post a Comment