The latest Objectivist Roundup has now been posted over at Reality Talk.

Go have a look!

Filed under: Objectivism | Post a comment

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 | 12 Comments

John Lewis, speaking to Tea Party organizers prior to the latest round of protests, lays out a comprehensive case on why the defense of Individual Rights should be the overarching theme of our opposition to the socialist policies of the current administration (video via Noodlefood)

Filed under: Objectivism | Post a comment

On the eighth anniversary of 9/11, we’ve now been fighting this war for TWICE as long as it took for us to defeat the Japanese – the closest historical comparison. We’re still fighting, and in many respects, we’re losing. Briefly:

Afghanistan – where all acknowledge we are close to collapse, the Taliban are now in control of large swaths of the country. Even after the addition of 20,000 more US troops, our commanders have called for more. This, after 8 years of… what, exactly?

From wikipedia:

On August 10, 2009, Stanley McChrystal, the newly appointed U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said that the Taliban has presently gained the upper hand and that the ISAF is not winning in the 8 year-old war. In a continuation of the Taliban’s usual strategy of summer offensives, the militants have aggressively spread their influence into the north and west Afghanistan, and stepped up their attack in an attempt to disrupt August 20 presidential polls. Calling the Taliban a “very aggressive enemy”, he added that the U.S. strategy in the months to come is to stop their momentum and focusing on protecting and safeguarding the Afghan civilians, while also calling it “hard work”.

Pakistan – The Taliban are gaining control of ever more territory and are threatening to gain control of the nuclear weapons in the one Islamic country that currently has them.

Iran – We are allowing the biggest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism to build their own nukes, despite the repeated threats of their President to use them to destroy our closest ally in this fight, Israel.

Saudi Arabia – Money from the royal family still flows to the Islamofascist and Wahhabi coffers which created Bin Laden and inspires terrorists across the globe.

Iraq – Our refusal to fight a total war left us bogged down for over 5 years in a needless war of attrition where we forced our soldiers to fight with both hands practically tied behind our back. Now that we have left, we see violence rising again, as Islamists come out of hiding to further foment chaos.

Across the Islamic world, in an unbroken stretch of land from Pakistan all the way to Saudi Arabia and beyond in Syria and Lebanon, we see an enemy gaining power, not losing it. Al Qaeda, itself, may be on the decline, but this war was never about just that one group (and even there, Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri remain at large). It was about an ideology, which holds that America as a bastion of Secular Freedom is its mortal enemy.

Why are we losing? We’re losing because Christian altruism demands that we do.

Here’s an article published 3 years ago, on the 5th anniversary of the attacks, by The Objective Standard. Titled “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense, it lays out, in precise detail, how we’ve gone from a country willing to nuke entire cities of our enemies in order to defeat them to one where civilian casualties must be avoided at all costs, impact on the war effort be damned.

In short, we refuse to fight to win.

Go read the entire article, but here’s an excerpt:

We are losing the war on Islamic Totalitarianism because our leadership, political and military, is crippled by the morality of altruism, embodied in the tenets of Just War Theory. The moral code inherent in Just War Theory defines rules that undercut, inhibit, and subvert any hope of success in war, because it demands that one regard one’s own life as the sacrificial object of others. The moral code of rational self-interest, by contrast, defines principles to attain the values that one’s life and happiness require—including success in war and national self-defense. Altruism is the morality of defeat, and rational self-interest is the morality of victory.

America faces a choice between two irreconcilable foes: self-defense or altruism—which are but forms of the basic choice we all face: life or death. Let us choose life.

Filed under: Objectivism | 1 Comment

I just discovered ARI‘s new monthly video section called “A Call to Action”. Here they are discussing the resurgence of Atlas Shrugged into the mainstream of our culture:

Filed under: Objectivism | Post a comment

I particularly liked his quote half way in that “This is so corrupt – it’s hard to imagine a couple of years ago we’d be at this point in American history”. Exactly – I’ve said this several times, but I never thought I’d see outright, true and real fascism so fully on display in this country. The latest example: those Chrysler creditors who actually want their contracts to be enforced are being strong armed into submission by President Obama.

Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

Here’s Yaron:

Filed under: Objectivism | Post a comment

Here are a couple of pictures from downtown last night. Forgive the quality – I only had a video camera (which apparently I need further instructions on how to use without making the viewing audience sick), so we grabbed a few still shots from them.

Here’s Rational Jenn, and family (be sure to check out her post on the video she made that was shown at the party):

Here are a couple of other signs referencing Ayn Rand:

(Not that I’m all yearning to fight the “evils” of fractional banking – maybe I’ll post more about that in the future…)

And another sign – it was right behind us, and I tried about 5 times to get a picture of it, but they’d pull it down each time just as I’d start to take a picture:

I got there right at 7, and the place was already packed, and by the time 9:00 rolled around, you couldn’t move an inch, the place was so crowded.

This is the first time I’ve gone to any type of event like this – and I enjoyed it, particularly meeting Rational Jenn, but I’m dubious on the long term results that such a disjointed gathering can produce – there were more causes and ideologies represented than I can name. The one unifying factor was they were all against Obama, and his spending proposals.

It seems to me that being united against a person, or cause, is what caused the current predicament the GOP is currently in. It surged to power against the presidency of Bill Clinton, but when it actually took hold of a governing majority in 2000, it had no underlying philosophy to guide it. We got compassionate conservatism, faith based initiatives, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, bans on embryonic stem cell research, $632 billion added to the federal budget (ironically small only in comparison to the current administration), the first round of bailouts, and a Republican treasury secretary giving bankers godfather-esque “deals they can’t refuse”. The past 8 years of pratfalls, faceplants and corruption all stemmed from the lack of guiding principles on the right. The essential problem today isn’t a political one – its a deeper seated, and societal, one. It’s a moral problem

The Ayn Rand Center put together a good set of resources for people attending the protest, and they put it quite nicely:

But over the past two centuries, the ideal of individual rights has all but disappeared from public discourse. In its absence has emerged today’s massive regulatory-welfare state, which taxes away nearly half our income, tells us what medicines we can take, what kind of light bulbs to buy, and is rapidly consolidating control over America’s banks, insurance companies, and industrial giants like General Motors.

What happened? Why did we abandon the American ideal? Above all, because the ideal lacked a moral defense.

To uphold the individual’s political right to pursue his own happiness, we must recognize the individual’s moral right to pursue his own happiness. But just try and say such a thing, and the voices will come from all sides–that’s selfish. “It’s selfish to want to plan for your own retirement–what about those who aren’t responsible enough to save? It’s selfish to oppose bailouts for struggling homebuyers–why should they have to move? It’s selfish to earn and keep a lot of money for yourself–what about those struggling to make ends meet?”

And it’s all true: the pursuit of happiness is selfish. That’s why you need the individual freedom of a capitalist system–to pursue your own interests, to act on your own judgment, to make your own life the best it can be. That’s why you need to crusade for individual rights, not just against the latest Washington power grab. To mount such a crusade requires more than protest slogans and picket signs. You must resolve to morally defend the individual’s right to live for his own sake, not as a servant of society. So long as you are willing to concede that self-interest and the profit motive are immoral, and that self-sacrifice for the “common good” is a moral ideal, you will continue to see freedom diminish and prosperity decline.

Above all, the morality of Altruism got us into the mess we are in today. That, more than just the specific plans and proposals being protested yesterday, is what fundamentally must be rejected before America can truly become a free society respectful of individual rights.

Filed under: Objectivism | 3 Comments

One of the interesting effects of Obama’s election and the deepening financial crisis has been the surge in interest in Ayn Rand’s ideas, and in sales of Atlas Shrugged. As of this writing, Atlas is #1 in US Fiction and Literature, #6 in total Fiction and Literature and #16 overall. It’s been climbing for weeks, and is now selling at 3x faster of a pace than it did when it was released 50 years ago.

And now, it’s selling so fast that Amazon can’t keep it in stock.

Here’s a screen shot of Amazon tonight:

Rand references are popping up almost daily. Drudge linked to a story today about a potential movie version of Atlas. Rush gave a monologue on Tuesday that contains one of the most eloquent statements of Objectivist principles delivered by a non-Objectivist that I can recall. Business Week, today, published a debate on whether “The Economy needs Ayn Rand“, with Onkar Ghate of ARI arguing the pro side. And, as to be expected, the National Review continued a decades old practice of dishonestly representing her ideas with a “symposium” on Rand’s recent popularity.

These are just a few that spring to mind. There have also been innumerable TV and Radio appearances by Yaron Brook and others from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Her ideas are clearly penetrating the culture in ways not seen previously, and they are needed now more than ever.

Filed under: Objectivism | 1 Comment

This week’s Objectivist Round Up is brought to you by Rational Jenn. Check out Post #4!

Filed under: Objectivism | Post a comment

Russia backs return to Gold Standard to solve financial crisis?!?!?!?

I never thought I’d read that headline about any country, particularly Russia. I don’t know anything about the particulars of the plan (if there are any particulars yet). The story makes clear it would be only the tiniest step back in the direction of a Gold Standard, but still – every step helps, right?

Filed under: Objectivism | Post a comment