This post today over at Rational Jenn’s blog really struck a chord with me. Not the Disney World part so much (have fun Jenn and fam!), but the section where she quotes Dr. Peikoff on the Benevolent Universe Premise in Objectivism. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, it means pretty much exactly what you would think it means. From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise.
The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.
Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance—they do not reveal the nature of reality. Ayn Rand’s heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically. You remember when Dagny asks Ragnar in the valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea, and he answers (I quote just part of this passage):
“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life.”
Now – I spent quite a few years recreationally studying Objectivism before getting more serious with it a few years ago. I’ve read most of Rand’s work and am about half way through Peikoff’s OPAR, and while I had heard this term associated with Objectivism before, I had yet to read the entire quote above until today.
In doing so, I felt a familiar surge of emotion, best described as joy (although that seems to miss the mark slightly), as I realized that here was the perfect expression of my views of the world. As Ayn Rand says, “An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises.” Objectivists recognize that actions which further man’s life are good and those which destroy man’s life are evil. We also know that rational men can ascertain what those actions are, and we know that when we act accordingly, we will achieve happiness and fulfillment in this life. Ours is not an existence doomed to suffering, always longing for some mysterious afterlife where everyone dwells in unending bliss. We strive to achieve happiness in this life, the only one that exists.
I use the word “familiar” above quite purposefully, for those four paragraphs encompass much of the feeling I got when I initially read Atlas Shrugged a decade ago, my first summer in college. It was electric, as if I’d had all of these thoughts and questions rolling around in my head my entire life and this book was the expression of everything I’d felt for so long but had been unable to put into words. It’s still hard for me to fully relay exactly how I felt that summer, but perhaps this sums it up most succinctly:
These are Heroes.
And this was their creed: “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
This also set into motion within me an intense internal debate which lasted for almost 8 years. As I began to read more of Rand’s purely philosophic works, such as Capitalism: Who Needs It and Selfishness, The Unknown Ideal, it became increasingly obvious that there were a number of fundamental conflicts between Objectivism and my Christian upbringing.
Is man a fundamentally flawed creature, cursed by his very nature to always live in sin, or is man a heroic being who can, by choosing to use his rational faculties, discover what values lead to a virtuous and happy life?
Is man, in essence, able to “save” himself or must he rely upon a 2000 year old sacrifice?
Should man be damned for all eternity for daring to obtain the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or does obtaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil unlock the ability of man to lead a life filled with success, virtue and happiness?
Must man wait to find true happiness in some afterlife, or can he find that happiness here on Earth?
Must he turn the other cheek, or demand justice?
Is pride a Virtue, or a Deadly Sin?
Should man live his life for the sake of others, or should he make his own life his highest value?
Is love of money the root of all evil, or is it the root of all good?
Do I choose Happiness in Life?
Or do I choose Happiness in Death?
As I struggled with these conflicts (and many more), I would inevitably come back to the same conclusion – I choose life, and I choose to seek my own happiness.
There were, however, many times during this struggle where I evaded what I knew was right and tried to find some sort of “happy medium” where I could fit the Objectivist Ethics into some sort of package that still had room for a god. Do you know how alone you feel when you realize that the entity you’ve been told your entire life was watching over you and answering your prayers is simply a human creation? At least for me, it wasn’t an easy realization to come to.
The tipping point, however, came a couple of months after my son, Charlie, was born two years ago. I had discovered the Ayn Rand Institute and the ARC Lecture Series and had been watching them after the rest of the house had gone to bed for the night. One night, I started Onkar Ghate’s 2006 lecture “Religion and Morality”, and by the time he was halfway done, I knew that there was no turning back. As I listened to him talk about God’s demand that Abraham murder his only son to show his dedication, I looked towards my son’s room. How could God demand that? And HOW IN THE WORLD could Abraham agree to it? And, most importantly, HOW THE HELL HAS THIS STORY BEEN TAUGHT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BY 3 RELIGIONS ACROSS THE ENTIRE WORLD AS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF MORALITY AND DEVOTION TO GOD?!?! Does the fact that God said “Just Kidding!” before Abraham plunged the knife into Isaac’s chest somehow make it ok? Not to me.
That was the first night I admitted to myself I was an atheist, and fully an Objectivist.
I woke up the next morning and had never felt so alive.
I’ll close this with two items, for those of you who would like more information on Objectivism.
The first is a link to the Introduction in The Objective Standard’s premier issue. It is, in my opinion, the absolute best succinct explanation of what Objectivism is and what I believe.
I’ll also leave you with the following passage from Ayn Rand’s novel, Anthem. It is, in my view, one of the most moving passages from any of Rand’s works. The journey of the protagonists in that novel is, in essence, not all together different from my journey described above. After a long struggle, Prometheus has finally rediscovered the meaning of the word I.
I am. I think. I will.
My hands . . . My spirit . . . My sky . . . My forest . . . This earth of mine. . . .
What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer.
I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a warrant for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.
It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect.
Many words have been granted me, and some are wise, and some are false, but only three are holy: “I will it!”
Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the loadstone which point the way. They point in but one direction. They point to me.
I know not if this earth on which I stand is the core of the universe or if it is but a speck of dust lost in eternity. I know not and I care not. For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.
….
What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?
But I am done with this creed of corruption.
I am done with the monster of “We,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word:
“I.”
Filed under: Objectivism |
