Posted By: John on 09/26My Journey to Objectivism
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.”
Excellent essay. This is what a true “prayer” consists of…talking to yourself and impressing upon yourself who you are…your subconscious will eventually “catch on” and reinforce who you really are. Inotherwords, you can count on yourself to fight and to win…not some mythical/mystical entity…but you.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. You are a smart cousin, no doubt – smarter than me. So was Thomas Edison, who said, “We don’t know one millionth of one percent about anything.” Maybe that’s over the top – so I’ll even spot you an entire 1%. Therefore, you know, for argumentative purposes, 1% of the entire knowledge in the universe. Could it be possible that in the other 99% there could be some evidence of God? If I told you that there absolutely is no gold in the entire country of China, that would be hard to prove. I’d have to look into every jewelry store, on every human hand and neck, under every elemental rock, and in every pimp’s grill (assuming there are pimps in China – my universal, or omniscient, knowledge is ALSO lacking just like yours) to prove it. But, it would be easier to state that I can prove that there IS gold in China. I could prove that with much less evidence by finding just one piece of jewelry on one of the 1 billion Chinese. I wouldn’t have to come up with every single morsel of gold in China to back my statement, but you would in order to prove the non-existence of gold in China. So, that sure is a lot of faith required for atheism. Are you sure you’re not just agnostic? Could there possibly have been some creator of our existence? I love you, John, and I’m not letting you go that easily
) I believe that Charlie was made by a divine creator. Evolution has a hard time explaining how his leg can heal itself from a fracture in that other room down the hall. That is, on a molecular, cellular, and macroscopic level, a miracle, and evidence of a loving Creator. I do fear pride. It is certainly not virtuous to be proud. To be proud is to attempt to be all-knowing, omniscient. Man is not a god, and never will be. Your objectivism sounds similar to humanism to me. Matthew 16:26, Proverbs 16:18, Job 20:4-11. I hope you check these out. Love, Wayne.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Its interesting that I just happen to read this post considering I was actually going to ask you the next time we met how you reconciled Rand’s Objectivism with Christianity. She obviously did not. Interesting the conclusion you came to.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:52 am
[...] Cox presents My Journey to Objectivism posted at John and Ansley, saying, “After being raised as a Christian for 18 years, I [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
Wayne is essentially saying that since you can’t know everything it is proof that you know nothing and you should just know your place in the universe. Don’t stand with pride about what you know and have accomplished and use your knowledge to increase the quality and happiness in your life. Grovel on your knees and pray that you are given some insight as to your purpose and existence. (As opposed to defining that for yourself)
John, I applaud your thinking this over and reflecting on it and trusting in your own rationality. I wish you a happy life that you have chosen to embrace fully.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Hey Wayne!
Glad you’re reading the blog. I’ll try to respond to more of this later, but I did want to address to one of your comments now.
You say, “Takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.”
I do not agree. It takes very little faith to be an atheist. In fact – it takes none. All it takes is a refusal to believe anything without any objective evidence for it. It is not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the believer to provide evidence for his existence. That’s why Christianity, and indeed all modern religion, has been set up on the foundation of non-provability. Believers and Non-believers alike all acknowledge that God must be accepted on faith alone – you can’t wait on proof to believe in him – because there isn’t any. I remember that lesson well from Sunday School.
In general we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this issue. I know you and Tara are strong believers – and I strongly believe that my point of view is correct.
Sounds like we’ll be seeing each other in a couple of weeks. Looking forward to catching up!
John
(For non-family members in the audience
– Wayne is my cousin and David is his brother-in-law.)
October 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Wayne, If atheism is a religion, as u seem to be implying, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Thanks to Diana Hsieh for this gem.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 am
Oddly enough, there are those who have had almost the precise converse of your experience. I have written about my fall from Objectivism, and to Christianity, here: http://twoarchitects.blogspot.com/
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Hi, John. I read the Objectivist Roundup every week (nearly), and I also have received a gift subscription to the Objective Standard. There’s a tale of a benevolent Objectivist, by the way.
In any case, I am wrestling with Objectivism and Judaism, which seems to be harder, because there is no creed, no requirement that one accept a particular concept of G-d, rather Jews tend to posit that G-d exists, but do not do much theologizing in the Christian sense. And Judaism is as much an identity as it is a religion. The emphasis is on behavior rather than on belief. In my dialogues with some Christians, particularly the Evangelicals, I come across a lot of misunderstanding of Judaism. I see it in your post as well. (I have no opinion on Islam in this regard because I do not know its stories).
Christians borrowed the Hebrew Bible, but have a completely different and much more literal understanding of it. For example, Judaism does not have a concept of original sin. Judaism teaches that the human being is ‘very good’ and that physical existence is very good. (I realize that the word physical here is redundant, but I find that with Christians, I must use it because they have inherited the Greek Mind-Body problem). Judaism never has just one interpretation of a story from the Bible, and the same is true of Genesis 2, the garden story, the second creation myth in the Bible. But original sin is not featured in any of them. (The Talmud and the Midrash–Jewish commentaries–are one long argument carried out over the centuries). Judaism does not need to put a negative gloss on this story because Judaism does not need the doctrine of Original Sin to explain the crucifixion of a god.
The same is true of the Akeda–the story of Abraham and the near sacrifice of Isaac. Quite a few commentators thought that this story was a warning of how easy it is to assume that what your neighbors are doing is what G-d wants you to do. (In this case, Abraham’s neighbors were throwing their firstborns into the fires of the god Moloch) There is a story in which the messenger (that is what the Hebrew says) who stops the near murder of Isaac is Sarah, the mother of the child. In any case, very few of the Midrashim praise Abraham for the incident. Again, Judaism does not have to praise a father for sacrificing his son, because Judaism does not posit that the crucifixion of the son of that father is salvific.
Maybe you can see my problem? I love my people, and I understand the stories through Jewish eyes, and since there are no creeds, Jews are not enjoined to believe specific things –even regarding the existence of G-d.. (When Maimonides introduced a creed, manyEuropean Jewish communities burned it in the streets). The ideas of Judaism in regard to original sin, suffering (we have suffered alot but we have never thought that was good thing or how it should be), money and prosperity, the goodness of life and it’s value, are the same in Objectivism. However, in a discussion with C. August at Titanic Deck Chairs that was dropped by him before completion, I got the sense that I cannot be Jewish–even though I do not believe in a omniscient, omnipotent god–and also study Objectivism.
And I understand from your blog, that you cannot be Christian–and that I understand more clearly–because Christianity demands a total allegience and submission of the mind (as does Islam). Judaism does not. It allows many arguments and there is no authority that can demand a set of specific beliefs.
Many Jews, who would protest their identity as Jews to their dying breath, do not believe in any god. But they act like Jews and love and appreciate the myths, stories, customs and traditions that Judaism has developed, understanding them in a completely non-dogmatic way. (By definition Judaism has no dogma since we have no central authority to enforce it).
So, perhaps you can understand my problem. I see Objectivism as a philosophy that states the truth about the world and about human beings. And I also see myself as a Jew, as a member of a unique people, a people who have sensibilities that I enjoy and that are utterly familiar to me.
I thought that you might have some understanding of my problem, and that you could help me identify the main problems with my situation, should you wish to do so.
Finally, congratulations on the birth of your son, and upon your momentous personal discoveries.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
[...] use this thoughtful post (HT: GVH) as an introduction to my latest blog link. John’s path of philosophic evolution is [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Hi John,
Very nice to read. I actually have a similar story where I think my children for my current understanding. I read The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged and then a bunch of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction about 6 or 7 years ago. It was awesome. But I noted the obvious conflicts and contradictions as well with Objectivism and the Christian world view I had accepted. I attempted to reconcile what I was learning and what I could see as true with was taught to me my whole life by family, friends and teachers. Over that time when faced with the contradiction of “I think vs. they say” I blinked quite a few times to avoid the conclusion that may upset my family members. Actually to be a little more fair to a person who was overcoming a lifetime of indoctrination I’ll say I deferred judgement pending more information.
I spent a long time not thinking much about it until posed with the question of how to educate my two daughters. I realized I was ill equipped to judge what was “good” education versus “poor” education. Beyond obvious necessities like reading and mathematics, but even then, how to judge what was going to be effective at teaching.
This was early last year, and I went to the root of the problem which is, I now know, fundamental questions on epistemology: how do I know what I know? And how do I know what is true versus what is false?
I knew from my prior study that Ayn Rand had some definite thoughts on that so along with some other lines of investigation I got a copy of Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s lecture “The Philosophy of Education” from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. And over the next 15 months or so every free hour was spent in detailed study of Objectivism various arguments for or against. And in detailed thought about truth, the importance of ideas and the identification and uprooting a lot of false ideas that I had accepted without even realizing it.
Earlier this year I began calling myself an Objectivist as I accepted that her philosophy was correct. And although the atheism thing caused a minor stir with family members by the time I became sure of it the idea of god was a minor issue. The thing that really broke the bank for me was overcoming skepticism I had picked up in college. It was a lecture series Dr. Peikoff had given called the Art of Thinking and when I hit the part on certainty, statistics and skepticism. It really made a lot of my thinking clear. It was when I learned that omniscience is not the standard of knowledge but reason and the evidence of the senses.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
John,
I will admit that I have not read all your posts here, so you’ll have to forgive my ignorance.
I personally believe that it is God’s charge that we evolve – that we ask the questions – and that we have the wisdom to find the answers that make sense to us. In the end it’s only our own quiet voice inside ourselves that we can truly trust. In my way of thinking, that IS the voice of God.
I believe we are all here on our own spiritual journey and for each of us, it is a different one. There are many ways to know God. How we know him is rarely wrong.
So, I applaud you in that regard.
My one response to your reference to Abraham and his belief that God was asking him to sacrifice his son: Was it God’s charge to do that where this story goes so wrong or is it man’s perception of God that was so misguided? I think if nothing else it shows that we have indeed evolved into more sophisticated beings both physically and spiritually.
We both know that in today’s society that parents who hear the voice of God tell them to kill their children are either very ill or criminally responsible. Never is it in our minds that God ACTUALLY asked that of them. Is it God who has changed or is it us as human beings who have evolved precisely as I believe is God’s plan all along.
I heard once that God is a building with many doors in. If I could encourage you it would be to see God as he is today, not as he was perceived to be thousands of years ago.
Many of the mantras you recite in your post I believe can and do reflect our evolved awareness of God. Don’t rule out his excistence quite yet. It is possible to understand that the “I” – this god – can include the person (the body), the spirit, and a higher power. We are not separate from God. He is not “out there” and we are “over here.”
We are truly one just as the drop of the water in the ocean IS the ocean. Where does one drop end and the other begin? The drop could not exist on it’s own. It would dry up and disappear. Together we are the sea.
Again, I applaud you for asking the questions. What is real and what is our human misguided perceptions of the truth about God. If you are too quick to think you have all the answers nailed down, you might be making the same mistake all humans and religions (including “Objectivism”) have made since the beginning of time.
Love you and can’t wait to see you on the 16th!
Aunt Karen
October 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm