The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
June 18, 2009 by Rick Koerber
Filed under Religion, Rick's Most Recent Posts
The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
An Open Letter to Objectivists
June 15, 2009
By Rick Koerber
Founder of the Free Capitalist Project
Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission. Talking like an Objectivist, referencing the characters in her books, and using the vocabulary of her movement—are all poor substitutes for acting in accordance with the ideas of an Objectivist and working to usher forth the moral revolution she so passionately advocated.
While there are notable and significant exceptions too many Objectivists that I come across on a regular basis seem to be using their intransigent atheism to justify abandoning the actual hard work of BEING real radicals for capitalism. I’m writing this criticism, not to be sensational or to attack, but to rattle a few rusty mental cages among a crowd I consider to be my friends—friends however, who seem to have succumbed to what Ms. Rand regularly described as the ‘sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.’
Before I go any further let me also offer two very distinct caveats at the outset. Number one, I am not an expert on Objectivism—though I do consider myself a diligent student. Number two; I do not mean to suggest that most Objectivists are not thinking. I mean instead to suggest that a large number of so-called Objectivists seem to be entertained and satisfied by their own thinking—in some queer sort of intellectual masturbation—rather than translating their ideas into marketable, articulated tools for ‘building a new culture on a new moral foundation.’
Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.
Alright. If I’ve gotten the attention of my desired audience, so far my remarks have been the equivalent of taking a stick and poking it violently into a previously docile beehive. Before I’m overcome with a multitude of now irritated bees intent on me as their new target—let me back up and create some context.
I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time perhaps five years ago. So, in the world of Ayn Rand fans and students, I’m certainly not an old timer. I did, however, find Atlas Shrugged to be, quite simply, earth shaking. I literally fell in love with the characters. It wasn’t because I was enjoying the fiction. I often found the reading long and arduous. Instead, I found in Atlas Shrugged, a systematic articulation of the main conflict facing the modern world, in a way that I had only been struggling to come to terms with previously.
Nevertheless, when I finished reading the book I found myself in a sort of depression. I had grown so accustomed to coming home from the office and sitting down to spend a few hours with Dagny, Reardon, Francisco and John Galt—eagerly plowing through pages to learn how they were dealing with the moochers and looters, that when the story ended, it was like saying goodbye to new friends. I actually experienced a real feeling of emptiness and withdrawal for the first few weeks after finishing the book.
It didn’t take long however, for me to realize that it was not her characters that I had actually fallen in love with, it was Ms. Rand herself–the mind behind the characters. This realization sent me on my own personal odyssey. Soon I was reading the Fountainhead and not long after I had ordered every book I could find online, authored by Ayn Rand. I read everything. I read Objectivist Epistemology, the Night of January 16th, the Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and on and on. I was like a starving man who had been invited to a banquet feast.
Oddly, while I was certain I had never read anything like Ayn Rand’s works, the material seemed somehow familiar. My own ideas were becoming more clear, and new related ideas were not hard to grasp at all. Ironically, I was so new to reading Ms. Rand that virtually no one around me knew enough to correct me when I would refer to her as “Ann Rand” rather than Ayn.
It didn’t take long before essentially every one of my seminars, every daily radio program, and every class that I was teaching had some reference to Ayn Rand or her books. For example, my recently completed four-hundred and forty-seven page student manual for my “13 Principles of Prosperity” course, contained forty-seven direct references and over one-hundred indirect references to Ms. Rand and her works. Some days I would talk about Comprachicos on the radio, during others I’d simply be quoting John Galt to one of my students. The bottom line is—I became a very sincere and diligent student of Ms. Rand and Objectivism.
Being a Mormon, and therefore a member of the larger “Christian” community, one of the most obvious contradictions in my new intellectual landscape was that Ms. Rand was an unapologetic, unwavering atheist. As time passed two related problems emerged. My religious friends and associates began regularly expressing concern about my unflinching advocacy of Ms. Rand’s ideas and at the same time so-called Objectivists would summarily dismiss me, my arguments, my ideas, and the movement I was building, because, in their words, I was a “God-believer.”
Nevertheless, I continued studying Ms. Rand and have also worked diligently to cultivate relationships and opportunities with people from all walks of life, including Objectivists. For example, a few years ago I was extremely excited to travel with an associate to southern California to meet Yaron Brook and a few of his colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute. They represent, generally speaking, some of the exceptions that I mentioned earlier on.
Over time I’ve learned that while there exists an unfortunate camp of so-called Christians who just can’t stomach the idea that Ayn Rand, an unapologetic atheist might have known something worth studying—even more oddly and surprisingly, there exists a camp of so-called Objectivists who can’t seem to think past the possibility that there might be some of us “God-believers” whose beliefs do not necessarily clash with reason.
In 1963 Ms. Rand, in a letter to US Congressman Bruce Alger wrote:
In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose—and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason. If you find that your beliefs do not clash with reason and that your political views are rational—then that is the area in which we can communicate. I sincerely hope that we can.
I think it might do my Objectivist friends well to consider a few points drawn out by this quotation from Ms. Rand.
1) There is a difference in fighting for reason and fighting against religion. Ms. Rand’s mission was the former.
2) It’s possible for a religious person and an Objectivist to communicate and cooperate when they both agree that reason is the standard in any mutual communication or endeavor.
Much more could be said about brain-off tribalists, who are eager to exclude ‘outsiders’ as a means of self-preservation. But, relevant point to these considerations is that as ‘a radical for capitalism’ myself, I’m at a loss to explain why so many Ayn Rand followers evidently think such titles are merely a slogan or private label social tattoo of sorts. Or to put the matter even more succinctly, these days it’s hard to sort out the Objectivists who are fighting for reason from those who are simply fighting against religion. In my own experience, Objectivists have twice in this past month told me that they could not assist my Free Capitalist Project since we do not disallow religious beliefs as a standard of our membership. How irrational!
In the early 1960’s Ms. Rand wrote to Senator Barry Goldwater saying,
I regard you as the only hope of the anticollectivist side on today’s political scene, and I have defended your position at every opportunity…I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.
Ms. Rand’s willingness to have hope and confidence in someone, despite their differences in belief and opinion on a subject as significant as the existence of God—is far afield of the contemporary banter spewed forth by a large group of her followers today. Consider, I was just reading Jared Seehafer’s March 17, 2009 piece entitled, “Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party’s Identity Crisis” published by Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com), and thinking to myself—“He’s not advocating for reason, he’s fighting against religion.” It was this realization that caused me to go and dig up the two quotes used above from Letters of Ayn Rand.
In his essay Mr. Seehafer concludes,
Republicans who support capitalism need to understand that those who combine religion with politics are their enemies, and must be ostracized from the party. In order to be successful, they need to defend capitalism on ethical grounds, which means recognizing that their best pitchman is not Jesus Christ, but John Galt.
Mr. Seehafer, like many “quick-to-the-punch” atheists, evidently does not see the contradiction of his own position. He indicts Republicans for mixing religion and politics and yet he himself brings the two together in his self-created, albeit artificial and irrational dichotomy of Jesus Christ vs. John Galt. His, ‘purge through ostracization’ is the same conservative approach taken by Republicans against Objectivists over the last five decades. Perhaps even more ironically, Ms. Rand, the creator of John Galt’s character, has actually said that,
Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal…
I suppose that Mr. Seehafer and my other friends like him would not want to throw out the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a “God-believer” and the document itself (being political) references “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “the Supreme Judge of the world.” I suppose also that Mr. Seehafer is not interested in throwing out the Constitution of the United States simply because so many of its drafters were “God-believers” who invoked his name during the convention. Ms. Rand argues instead that;
The Founding Fathers were America’s first intellectuals, so far, her last. It is their basic political line that the New Intellectuals have to continue. Today, that line is lost under layer upon layer of evasions, equivocations and plain falsehood; today’s Witch Doctors claim that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was faith and uncritical compliance with tradition; today’s Attila-ists claim that the basic premise was the subordination of the individual to the collective and his sacrifice to the public good. The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The moral premises implicit in the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, in the social system they established and in the economics of capitalism, must now be recognized and accepted in the form of an explicit moral philosophy…The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution.
The point, being missed by Mr. Seehafer and so many of my Objectivist friends, is that the question of God and issues of religion have become their knee-jerk excuse for idleness, laziness, crassness and disengagement. The mission we have before us, all of us who love our lives, is to advocate for this moral revolution. The only required foundation for that, according to Ms. Rand, is a shared commitment to two essential principles: a) emotions are not tools of cognition; b) no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. All other philosophical contradictions—including issues surrounding God and religion—will be resolved, in time, by a group of reasonable and thinking people.
Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand?
It was several years ago, after picking up a copy of For the New Intellectual for the first time, that I boarded an airplane and felt the challenge I’m attempting to convey today. I’m certain that I must have read the majority of that essay with my jaw literally gaping open. It’s probably the only flight in my life that I don’t remember uttering a single word to any other passenger. For the New Intellectual, is the most comprehensive and detailed call-to-action for those of us who value truth and love our lives – more than anything I’ve ever come across.
We reformed businessmen could benefit from the efforts of Objectivist intellectuals who can free themselves from their own irrational mental indulgences. Yet, I regularly meet so-called Objectivists who can quote or paraphrase—nothing—from that essay. How is this possible? How is it possible to be an Objectivist, or anything close, and not be committed to the revolution advocated by Ms. Rand?
Long before I had started reading Atlas Shrugged I was engaged in an effort to organize at least 300,000 members into a “free capitalist” cause. My organization, the Free Capitalist Project, advocates for capitalism as the foundation of a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the Founders. I wonder how many so-called Objectivists even recognize that language.
The second-hander’s dream of tribal prestige is no substitute for getting on with the business of this revolution. This is no theoretical project and no amount of theoretical posturing will do.
In one of the most poignant sections of his radio address, John Galt challenges:
If you find a chance to vanish into some wilderness out of their reach, do so, but not to exist as a bandit or to create a gang competing with their racket; build a productive life of your own with those who accept your moral code and are willing to struggle for a human existence…raise a standard to which the honest will repair: the standard of Life and Reason. Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity—act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind’s rebirth.”
I am a radical for capitalism. While there exists any number of different groups who could use a healthy criticism, today, I’m challenging my Objectivist friends who have become complacent and disinterested. The hollow, righteous sounding bromides so often uttered by feigned intellectuals so lucidly able to describe our culture’s impending doom—is no substitute for a deliberate, strategic and organized effort put forth in defense of Ms. Rand, Objectivism, and capitalism.
This criticism is an open invitation from some of us, who like you, have stepped out of that dismal gray vacuum of a bankrupt culture and are committed to ushering forth the producer revolution advocated consistently by Ms. Rand.
We, who are NOT about to die, salute you.
###
To Rick,
My Ayn Rand story parallels yours exactly (except the book order). I read Atlas and then felt the sadness of finishing it, but Fountainhead was a close second. Then, Virtue of Selfishness, Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff (MY bible), Philosophy-Who Needs It, Return of the Primitive, Voice of Reason etc. And finally, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal (wow! Amazing book, what took me so long?).
I also have watched and listened to most of her audio and video lectures and every Leonard Peikoff podcast.
I grew up Catholic and during my 20′s went through the whole ‘trying to find the right religion thing’. In my 30′s I was going the New Age route; reading Zen Buddhism, Hindu and Eastern religion writings. Then it was Alister Crowley and Qabala (Kabbalah) which led to a study of many of the ancient pagan religions. Egyptian, Roman and Greek mythology etc.
Through my studies I was beginning to find out more about the ORIGINS of Religion and was realizing they were MAN made. I was almost an Atheist when I read Atlas. Well, by the time I finished Atlas, I was an Atheist. Don’t ask me why, the book is not a case for Atheism, I just think it was my years of study and the logic and reason within the book that gave me that final push I needed.
Since then, for ammunition I have read many Atheist books. The God Delusion, Atheist Universe, Breaking the Spell and a few others. By far, the best is Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. Who I believe is an Objectivist judging by his style of argument and his many Ayn Rand references.
Leonard Peikoff, who, next to Rand herself is considered THE foremost expert on Objectivism, (he did write OPAR) has spoken about the possibility of a ‘religious believer’ Objectivist.
Frankly, he says it is NOT possible. As a matter of fact, a questioner asked him if an Objectivist should pursue a serious relationship with a Christian and his answer (with a few minutes of explanation) was basically NO.
Listen to his podcast which is available on iTunes. Episode #28, Sept. 1st 2008 and #15, May 19th 2008 to hear his full answers.
I’m surprised that having read most of her books, you would not already have figured out that Objectivism and belief in the supernatural are 100% incompatible. My guess is that when those parts of her books contradict a religious belief of yours, that you have to disregard what she says in those parts.
I actually ran across The Virtue of Selfishness during my religious and philosophical earlier days and stopped reading it about 2 chapters in when I realized she was an Atheist. It wasn’t until about 6 years later that I became an Atheist and then read it through.
When I first became a confident Atheist, completely 100% sure that it is NOT possible in a coherent universe for the existence of the supernatural, boy did I backlash against religion.
I was very upset that so much of my life had been spent in Catholic school and church studying basically NOTHING. So I was online arguing with any Christian that would try to prove the existence of god. Well, after a year of that I realized that a person needs to find the truth on their own and only someone who is fairly close already can be reasoned with and shown the light. Yes, I still like saying it like that to be a little annoying.
Please do yourself a favor and read Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. If you are a human searching for truth, and CARE about the truth, then you MUST follow reason where it leads and if it leads you to Atheism, you need to accept it. Wishing for something to be true will not make fantasy a reality. On the other hand, if you would rather believe in the supernatural because it is comforting and you don’t want to venture into uncomfortable territory, then you are free to do so. But then you are rejecting the very foundation of Objectivism which is REALITY (Chapter 1 in OPAR) and cannot be called a champion of reason.
You can still be a great Capitalist, just please don’t pray for business advice, Jesus was definitely a Socialist.
Well, I hope you read my comment and I welcome a response.
Sincerely,
-Brian Young
Brain – thx for taking the time to share the short version of your experience. Also for the sincere response. I will say just a few things here – 1) The point of the essay was not to debate Ayn Rand’s atheism or my religion (that is something I have planned for a future essay) but to point out that the revolution at hand is something both atheists and religionists can work together to accomplish if we support the basic premise of capitalism – and to challenge Objectivists who seem to posit otherwise. 2) I enjoyed, even the short version, of your story related to faith and religion vs. atheism. My conclusions however are opposite. This does not mean I disrespect you or your experience but I will say you are making several assumptions about my experience (and that of all religious persons) in your sharing of conclusions. For example…by making generalizations about “supernatural” existence or God, without defining terms (which has to be done on a case by case or group by group basis) you are assuming that those words are accepted to mean to me (or those like me) what they mean to you. So, the bottom line is – while this post was not directly related to the religion discussion about if a religious person can be an Objectivist (a subject I will take up soon) I appreciate your feedback and look forward to more correspondence .
Thanks for the response. I concentrated on the religious aspect of your article because that was where I disagreed the most with you. For example, I think the quote from Jared Seehafer was taken right out of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (minus the Jesus and Galt comparison).
The only assumption I think I made was about possibly disregarding something she says if it contradicts your religion. I even said it was just my guess. I try to be very careful how I word things in posts because I’m not a writer and I can’t be sure that the reader knows what I’m emphasizing. Hence my use of capitals once in a while.
Just one more thing. I take ‘supernatural being’ to mean ANY being which is outside, above or beyond REALITY. Unable to be seen, touched, tasted, or sensed in any way.
I could go on into great detail on what the ‘supernatural’ could be, but among the many online debates I’ve seen and had, the definition is very simple and universal among rational people.
Well, thanks again. Nice talking with you and looking forward to more of your articles.
-Brian Young
Thanks, Brian, for sharing your experiences with Objectivism. It’s interesting how different two person’s experiences with Ayn Rand can be. For instance, my own experience with reading Atlas Shrugged and then devouring the rest of her writings has been one that has actually increased my understanding and testimony of my religious beliefs. Seems like a contradiction, I know, but it really isn’t, at least from my viewpoint. It’s also difficult to describe in a short little comment how I came to these conclusions and how Ayn Rand has contributed. So I’ll leave you with a couple of my thoughts on the nature of God. My belief is that he is not a supernatural entity beyond the laws of the universe. I believe that He is merely a perfected Man and has become God by progressing in knowledge and power and influence line upon line, precept upon precept, until He has obtained a perfect knowledge of the nature of the universal laws that we are all subject to. He lives by and understands those laws so perfectly that he can command nature in ways that appear to us as ‘miraculous’. However, it only appears that way to us because with our limited understanding of the nature of reality, we can’t understand how they are done. Thanks again for your thoughts. I hope I have given you some food for thought also.
Wow! This was such a thought provoking article! I loved it. It makes me want to rouse my own faculties more in the defense of capitalism and the revolution. Keep up the good work, Rick.
The trouble with “intellectuals” is two-fold.
First, many of these people are so far removed, so insulated from society at large that they have difficulty in understanding the real life issues of the masses.
If you cannot understand the “common” man how can you effectively call him to arms?
And second, oft-times intellectuals become so enamored of their own thoughts, so obsessed with their own thought processes, that they become complacent, torpid, affectless.
Without a clear and concise blueprint of how to get from “here” to “there” it all becomes just so much idle chatter.
So what exactly do we do?
Start by visiting http://www.freecapitalist.com/pledge and then if you agree, take the pledge. It will start you on a journey.
Thanks for your piece.
I personally wearied of slamming Believers long ago (my first read of Atlas Shrugged was 1958 and my first sporadically supporting interest in Objectivism came in 1964). Slamming is unproductive and just creates an enemy where once was either a potential or ongoing lover/friend/peer had been.
But, you are right, some wannabe Objectivists delight in doing this – knowing that its unproductive – and I personally believe its done for intra-personal reasons not related to communication with others.
One of the issues I have with your piece is that you did not even mention that Ayn Rand advocated rational egoism as opposed to universally held altruism (as she succinctly defined it). I personally believe that if post-Platonic religious fervors had never advocated ‘Faith, Hope, and Charity’ as the greatest of virtues (contradistinct from her own, which were ‘Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem), the subject of ‘God(s)’ would have never been mentioned in Ms Rand’s published works.
Cecil Williams
Cecil, thanks for the feedback. I didn’t mention much about the details of Ms. Rand’s advocacy, since a) I talk about her quite a bit on my blog and on my radio show and b) the focus of this essay was on the relationship between religious and non-religious followers of Ayn Rand in advocating for revolution. I agree with you however in your characterization of Rand. However, in the end when you suggest pigeon hole advocating “Faith, Hope, and Charity” I will point out that these are terms that have different meaning to different religious and religious persons let alone – people in general. An agreement on the meaning of these terms would be required for a healthy conversation there.
Hi Rick,
I enjoyed reading your “Betrayal of Ayn Rand” essay and was humored by your desire to add to the list of people you choose to contend with (which, as I see it, are really all the “same” group of people lumped into one big group, i.e. those who are not “truly”, personally, actively involved in the moral revolution you and Ms. Rand speak of).
As for me, I do love, and have enjoyed, the objectivist truths that Ms. Rand and other “so-called” objectivists have helped to promote and put out there in the public domain of published thought. I say “so-called” objectivists, not to say that Ms. Rand is NOT an objectivist, and NOT to demean her objectivity, nor to attack her personally in any way, but to call attention to the fact that, as you have pointed out in your essay, there are many who choose to label themselves as “objectivists”, when unfortunately, they do not LIVE as a “true” objectivist, subjectively selecting to cling to only those truths that they have grown fond of, while clinging even more lovingly to the falsehoods they hold dear. The fact is, WE ALL do this to a degree, and only become truly “free” to the degree that we allow our false ideas to give way to pure truth.
For example, using Ms. Rand as an example, in one of the quotes you cite, she DEFINES HERSELF as an “intransigent atheist”, as if she actually takes pride in that LABEL. The dictionary defines the word “intransigent” as…”refusing
compromise…irreconcilable…refusing to moderate an extreme position” etc.
To me, by definition, it is NOT the characterisic of a “true” objectivist to be “irreconcilable”, “inflexible”, unwilling to “moderate an extreme position” etc. To me, a true objectivist will not only be open to the receiving of ALL personally undiscovered truth, but will LIVE life in a passionate quest for it, hungering and thirsting after it.
It is impossible to create an environment for the mind that is conducive to the receiving of new light and truth without first being “flexible” in the sincere consideration of ideas that are, at first, foreign to the hearer.
The dictionary also defines an “objectivist” as someone who believes that “knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events, rather than feelings or thoughts.” And yet, EVERY TRUE PRINCIPLE, even the principle of “morality” itself, IS a THOUGHT, it is an IDEA which one can only come to KNOW the truth of by personal, INTERNAL experience with it (ie. by the power of the Holy Ghost).
I served part of my mission for the Church in Singapore, Malaysia, and India, and in the process, and over many years since, I have studied and learned about many schools of religious and philosophical thought, including that of just about every “Christian” denomination.
While there (overseas), I ran into a lot of people who labeled themselves as “free thinkers”. And as such, they would say, “I don’t claim to know that there is NO God…there actually COULD BE a God…I just don’t have evidence of that…so I just live my life by common sense and reason” etc. I found this type of individual was usually far more “objective” than the self-proclaimed “atheist”, or the so-called “Christian” for that matter.
Some would argue that Machiavelianism is also an “ojectivist” approach, and perhaps this is the reason why so many atheists can claim to be “objectivists”, while being drawn to the ideas of solialism, communism, and secular progressivism, etc, sometimes completely disregarding the dangerous, negative, immoral impact of so many of the false ideas promoted by these philosophies of the world.
In my opinion, the TRUE objectivist, is the sincere seeker of all truth, willing to embrace it, and live according to it, once found. As one of our classic hymns proclaims, “truth IS reason.” And thus, it is only WITH GOD’s HELP, He being the “owner” or “possessor” of ALL TRUTH, that one can be a COMPLETE objectivist, becoming one with ALL reason, or in other words, becoming one with ALL truth.
I am glad to see that Ayn Rand was one of the few atheists that (through objectivism) saw that fighting against religion, in general, is not a worthy pursuit, but that fighting for reason IS. And fortunately, she had enough of the truth, enough “reason” to see the difference between the two. And for THAT, and for publishing so many of her good thoughts on the virtue of capitalism, I applaud her. However, I do wish that she had labled herself a “free thinker”, like the many people I bumped into overseas, rather than an “intransigent atheist”, since I believe that would have made her MORE of an objectivist than she was. And, of course, I hope that at some point in her eternal existence, she will come to a knowledge, and acceptance, of all truth.
I am personally involved in launching a “movement” as well, and I believe it is in harmony with, or just a part of, the moral revolution you speak of, yet a bit more “focussed” on specific legislative/electoral actions “We the People” can take to place greater, more clarified LIMITS on the powers of our government, in an effort to make the people of the United States truly “FREE” again.
Obviously, you are personally experiencing the negative impact of government power run amuck! I would love to meet and talk with you about “my” movement some time, and perhaps you’d like to interview me at some point on your radio show to participate or help me get the word out. My website (currently under construction) is “CapTheGovernment.com”.
I’m hoping to launch the movement and the website on or sometime near the 4th of July, being Independence Day, I thought that would be fitting.
Oh, and just a side note, I am a licensed Trading Advisor and had my own run-in with the idiots of Utah’s Division of Securities several years ago (Gary Bowen and some others), so I know a little bit about what you’re facing and wish you the best of luck with that.
Best Wishes,
Bill Cox
Bill, thanks for the feedback. A few observations – 1) I do not think the terms objectivist and Objectivist are the same, and 2) I believe Ayn Rand’s intransigence in her mind were to certain principles she connected with atheism. I do believe she was mistaken but I think all lovers of truth become inflexible when it comes to tolerating error in their own minds. 3) I do have issue with two groups a) those who do not love freedom and b) the Brain-off crowd who thinks they love freedom but don’t realize the consequence of their own position. I welcome the idea that not everyone advocating for the “revolution” might find an interest in joining my specific movement – though I hope over time to improve to the point where this would be impractical. So about your movement, I’m interested in learning more – but I will say that I am of the opinion that any movement directed at reforming Washington, without first building a social/economic base of organized and like-minded individuals just feeds the problem not the solution. I’ve written about this at FreeCapitalist.com
Again thanks for the feedback I look forward to getting more information from you.
Rick – I enjoyed the article. Ayn Rand would be proud. I teach a philosophy class at a local college. During a recent class discussion one student argued similar ideas to those expressed in this article – maybe that student was also a student of the Free Capitalist Project. The class recently ended, otherwise I would ask you to come speak on this topic. Maybe in the future?
Rick your piece started off great. But it dropped in to a PRETTY PLEASE Accept me to the Tribalist. If the Objectivist don’t have the reason to understand that there is no conflict in the belief in God and Reason, Frack em. No Pray for them LOL.
The same goes for those so called “God-believers” who can’t see the value of the points made my Ayn. I personal think that she was morally corrupt. Her principles when it comes to business and understand the dangers associated with socialism are very sound. But when it comes to how people inter relate on a human one on one basis is warped. Now the Bible show example of warped characters and relations but it my belief it is to serve as a demonstration of mankind’s need for a redeemer.
Also many so called Atheist are Agnostics. Rand was off base on claiming to be an Atheist. You can’t be an Atheist. To deny God is to acknowledge his existence. You don’t have to deny what does not exist. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny exist in the realm of ideological concepts. Just because they don’t have magical power doesn’t mean that they don’t exert influence over our reality. Lies may be false, but they are real. And that is A is A.
Clarence Coggins
Prince of Web 2.0
http://hudsonliberty.com/magic.html
PS. What the Atheist could mean is that they are Anti Deist which would make them anti God which is worse than being anti-religion, because religion isn’t God. It is merely a culture way of corporately worship, codifying, defining the proper way to relate to God(s) or forces beyond us.
Rick,
Very interesting article and very apropos to my current state. I read AS 30 years ago and like you read every other AR publication in sight. I became disillusioned not in Objectivism, but in its ability to take root in the US.
The current crises in the US (moral and economic) have led me down new and old paths. The old one is Objectivism. It makes as much sense now as it ever did, since it is a timeless tome of human nature and human nature never changes. For all the strides we’ve made economically and technologically, we are as morally inferior as we have ever been. I am hopeful, though, that our current crisis will lead people towards reason, freedom and capitalism.
Anyway, I’ve been involved with the Tea Parties and went to one recently which was heavy on religious preaching and raising hands. When I noticed that the score after 40 minutes of speeches read, God 25, Individual Rights 0, I knew it was time to leave. I have had deeply religious moments in my youth, but few since. I decided long ago to not waste my time thinking about that for which thought is not required. Rand’s theories do require one to elevate Reason to the top tier of values. Isn’t Faith the suspension of Reason? Isn’t that the basis for Rand’s rejection of religion?
I understand your revulsion when being confronted by Objectivists for being a theist. I was struck by it as well during a conversation with a friend just months ago. I’ve also noticed that in the past month I have questioned approx. 4-5 religious people about faith and they were shocked and turned off by my intimating that faith is a suspension of reason. In every instance, the religious person would not allow the conversation to continue.
Well, I don’t have a conclusion for this letter. I just know that there are many Republicans that can’t talk politics without putting their religion into it. For me, that’s a huge turn-off. I don’t want to talk religion, pro or con, just philosophy. But, philosophically speaking, if Reason is what allows people to integrate thought in order to create values, which ultimately will further freedom, rights and capitalism and alternatively, faith and hope are the suspension of Reason, then wouldn’t an Objectivist and a Radical for Capitalism both be against religion for that purpose?
In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed your article as I think it hits upon a very crucial point.
Regards,
Larry S.
Rick,
The reason atheists are less willing to associate with the FCP than theists are is that theism accepts emotions as cognitions. Any atheist will find this contradictory to individualism, and consider that an organization that puts God in its first principle will not advance their cause. It is a fundamental contradiction. It is unfair to condemn them for refusing to participate in a medium that feels contradictory to them. It is altogether fitting that they would spend their energy trying to resolve the contradictions they see in the world around them. They are not anti-religion for an arbitrary reason, but because it seems utterly essential.
When you insult people for not taking an action, you imply that they are morally flawed for that. If you say that an Objectivist is morally flawed if they are not activists, you imply their lives are not their own, and they should live for the cause’s sake. People join causes when they see their self-interest in doing so. You could rally more people by explaining how activism is in their self-interest. Rand did not tell people they need to live for her cause. It seems that you are advocating another version of self-sacrifice.
A well-put essay, Rick. Many months ago, as I began to deepen my study of what I now call Randian philosophy, I reached a point of saturation in these ideas. This saturation came not due to things I read from Rand herself but from her current day followers from the Ayn Rand Institute. Students of Rand have fallen into the all-to-familiar trap of taking the teachings of a thought leader and bending them to form a cause seemingly unintended by that leader. As I have monitored the Randians of today, I have often had similar responses you describe in this piece with Mr. Seehafer. It is my experience that the Randians have abandoned the quest of liberty and have substituted it for an ironic militant fight against religion with mystical tyrannical overtones (even in the contrary responses to this essay, the battle is about you supposed needing to come to the realization of the “truth” about the non-existence of God rather than about than banding together in the common cause of liberty). Simply put, I do not find Rand’s followers of today engaging in much reasonable, rational conversation. This behavior has, in effect, diffused their power in the marketplace of ideas regarding the cause of liberty.
Interesting piece, however you did seem to slide off the topic of the betrayal onto the defense of religion as it relates to objectivism and reason. But still well written.
I would be prone to concur with the Rand quote you posted on the subject, in so long as the religious influence on one’s politics or morality adheres to reason, then we can communicate. However, I do think it is important to elucidate out another point that Rand also shares with me. I won’t quote her in this instance, but instead use my own words.
Ironically enough, one of the biggest problems I tend to have with religion is quite similar to the problems I have with statism (socialism/communism/marxism) and various movements such as environmentalism. Mainly that they attribute the basis for their morality on an irreproachable, intangible ideal (God, the state, mother earth, etc.) and place the importance of that target above the individual will of man.
As I stated in a post on my own blog “the nature of power and why I am a skeptic”, no man has power over another without it being granted or taken by force while others allow it – the easiest of the two being the former. And there is no quicker way to get someone to willingly give up their own power of self-determination than to convince them there is some ideal higher than their own self-interest. It is this combination of facts which makes even the reasonable people who act on ‘faith’ unreasonable to deal with.
Moral values exist for their own sake. One should not steal because one would not want another stealing from them – property is a product of one’s own labors and no other should have right to it without the consent of the person who earned it. One should not do others harm because one would not want others to do harm unto them unjustly. etc. When confronting many who rely on issues of ‘faith’ instead as the basis of their morality, the ultimate ‘reason’ behind their ‘beliefs’ is akin to “because God said so” or “because it’s for the common good”. That is not reason.
SW
Rick,
I posted a comment here yesterday, politely and honestly disagreeing with the conclusions of this essay. I submitted it, and saw the screen which stated that the comment was awaiting moderation. But I have not seen my comment show up here yet. I admit that I am concerned that my objections are being censored, and hope that it will yet show up and prove my fears wrong.
The statement that “emotions are not tools of cognition”, found in your paragraph above, is not a principle. It is a false statement. Did Ayn Rand use these exact words? Do you mean to say that cognition should be the standard for making choices, and not emotions?
It is a true statement, and it is the way Ayn Rand said it. I do mean to say that cognition should be the standard for making choices, and not emotions.
Emotions are an effect of the ideas we hold in our minds, whether conscious or subconscious. The same entities can cause different emotions in different people, depending on the ideas they have in their mind about it. Here is an example:
In a room there is a screen which has several slides of cross-sections of body tissue projected on it. Several different people enter the room and look at the screen. Someone fresh from a third world country who has never seen such technology looks at the screen and feels nothing, because he has no idea what it is. A student who has not been keeping current in his studies looks at the screen and feels dread, because he realizes he is about to fail a test. St. Augustine looks at the screen and thinks, “Oh, those evil scientists are at it again,” and feels anger. A physician comes in and looks at the screen and feels immensely sad, because he knows the tissue comes from a close friend and this confirms a fatal diagnosis. A researcher comes in who has been working on a complex theory of cell growth, and sees in the slides a confirmation of his life’s work: he feels elation. All of these people have an emotional response based on the ideas they already hold.
A reply to you Bill, but also with relevance to your positions Rick …
I just want to note for the benefit of all who might read your reply that whatever you are referring to as “objectivist” has little to do with what the word “Objectivist” refers to. The uncapitalized word, “objectivism”, refers either to an epistemological polarity or to any of a number of doctrines that reality is external to the mind or, as you found, that “knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events, rather than feelings or thoughts.” . The capitalized word, “Objectivism”, refers to the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand that has those characteristics, but much, much more. That is the name or title she gave to it. It is like the difference between “the fountainhead” that means “a source” and “The Fountainhead” that is a book written by Rand.
You may say that Rand’s work does not exhibit the characteristics of a true objectivist, but if you mean no more than the dictionary definition you are clearly wrong. If you mean objectivist on the scale of what Objectivist means, you need to name what that includes and how it conflicts with specific ideas and principles formulated by Rand. You should also clearly distinguish Rand, the original Objectivist, from the contemporary adherents to her philosophy. One is an Objectivist to the degree one agrees with and acts consistently with the philosophy Rand defined. The content of that philosophy is what she wrote and/or authorized in her life. What others make of it is their interpretation of it and nothing else. You may not judge her philosophy by what they say or do.
In the issue of the objectivity of being an intransigent atheist you are mistaken. It is an understandable error. Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy, and not every aspect leaps out at you from the pages of the novels, even when actually in there. You have overlooked the principle that knowledge and certainty are contextual. It is only contextual nature of knowledge that enables us to achieve absolute certainty while retaining an open mind to future knowledge.
The context of our knowledge is limited to the material of which knowledge is composed — evidence of the exact nature of existence — of the entities and relationships among them that exist. If you limit your claims to knowledge and certainty to that realm you can arrive at conclusions of which your are absolutely certain. And if you succeed in that, no future knowledge can ever alter that conclusion, because the identity of the evidence will not change. You will merely add new and more complete knowledge to that which you already have.
Additionally, the acquisition of future knowledge is usually in stages. Some evidence warrants possibility, very much evidence warrants probability, and all the necessary evidence finally warrants certainty. The free thinkers you cited were trying to uphold the principle of the contextual knowledge. They erred only in saying that there “could be a God”. That is a statement of possibility, and that is where we come to the intransigence of Rand’s atheism.
It is a contradiction to say that there could be a God, but I just don’t have evidence of that. Without any verifiable evidence at all, there are no grounds to posit possibility. In the context of knowledge it is a non-starter. Positing it is no different than positing that Dumbo could really fly or that distant galaxies are populated with beings not unlike us. In regard to one’s life, it is a useless idea. If embraced and nurtured nonetheless, it endangers one’s ability to navigate successfully through one’s life.
I am fully aware of how alien this intellectual discipline must seem to you. I was raised a Catholic and am fully cognizant of every step of the process of severing oneself from a devotion to a God that was imposed and accepted in youth. But you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot have contextual knowledge and nurture speculations of God too. To squeeze God into the box of knowledge, you must first formulate a cogent definition that is consistent with the already successfully formulated definitions of the rest of existence.
It is the absence of that viable definition that demands intransigent atheism. I am more intransigent on the non-existence of God than on the non-existence of human life on a distant galaxy. At least in the latter case we know that the only difference to be bridged is one of duplication in another location, and there is nothing to absolutely preclude it. But that said, such speculation remains useless to the task of living.
In the case of God, all definitions and descriptions are fraught with self-contradictions and/or contradictions of existence as we already know it. Consequently that kind of speculation is worse than useless, because it additionally undermines the prerequisite function of our mind that is our only means to survive and thrive as human beings.
And as I look back on religion I am perpetually baffled at those who posit reason as a gift of a God that did not want them to use it, especially to identify Him. The flip side of that is, what gives anyone the idea that the God they are positing wanted them to know anything about Him at all? Could not the act of attempting to define the exact nature of a God not just as well be an act of arrogance as an act of allegiance? What if the God wants to see what you do with the reason you were given? Will your God punish those free thinkers for acting in accordance with what they actually are instead of what you imagine Him to be?
In a different format:
Now that Ayn Rand has finally demonstrated the efficacy of Reason to man in the 20th century, a new speculation about God has emerged as a revision of Blaise Pascal’s 17th c. thought that it is safer to “wager” that God does exist than that he doesn’t:
The existence of God cannot be determined through Reason. Though all men are free to “wager” as though God does exist (just to be on the safe side!), they should take into account that Reason would have to be God’s crowning creation and gift to man. It endows man with the capacity to grasp everything that exists in the universe that God wants man to be able to know and the capacity to use that knowledge to perfect the life God gave him. They should consider also the possibility that God would not want to be known by man, but rather would prefer to observe from afar what men can achieve on their own by means of the capacities with which they are endowed.
After all, God would not have given man Reason if he did not want man to use it in accordance with its designed function. Furthermore, any rejection of Reason, such as the arbitrary replacement of it by the Satanic anti-capacity of Mysticism to fabricate false ideas of God’s universe, or worst of all, false ideas of the nature or will of God Himself, would most certainly constitute the most damnable sin.
Thus: man should rather need only one commandment: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt falsify neither other gods before Me, nor the nature of Me Myself nor the nature of My creations.
Thus: there would be only one mortal sin: the rejection of God’s Reason in favor of Satan’s Mysticism.
Thus: in the end, Heaven would necessarily be occupied by God and around Him all of the rational atheists who ever existed.
Thus: all who abused the rational minds God gave them and stubbornly clung with nothing more than Faith to religions that worshipped allegedly revealed gods or other speculations would necessarily reside with Satan in the fires of Hell for eternity.
Thus: it would perhaps be better not to “wager” on the existence of God after all.
Well written and well thought out. As an Objectivist who struggles with faith issues this was a great read. Keep up the good work.
Bill
We, who love our lives, salute you.
Hello Rick,
I have read your article on the Objectivist Online Forum. While I do agree with you on several points, I would like to point out, first off, a clipped quote. I will now finish it off for you.
“There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.
This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men’s natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war — both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man’s soul).” -Ayn Rand, July 9, 1946, to Sylvia Austin
now that that’s cleared up, I would like to thank you for writing this article. I do agree that Objectivists should not be crusading for the end of Religion, nor should they be blocking out potential Objectivists due to their religious backgrounds. I see it as, however, a push towards understanding of Individualism and what it entails. forcing the end of religion on people will make people angry. While I hope that no other person pushes their religion onto me, I also will not force my religion (or lack thereof) onto others.
I am glad to have read your article, and I thank you for writing it.
A few quotes by Ayn Rand to religious conservatives during the 60s do not make a great case for her being soft on religion. In the 60s, capitalism was at a nadir and she was more open to making common cause with anyone that would help holster the gun of the state. The 70s and early 80s saw her attitude towards religion become much more negative: she correctly foresaw the evangelical surge and the relative bankruptcy of the New Left.
Her entire ethics was (and is) touted as standing 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition on its head. Her epistemology spurns faith as antithetical to man’s life. Her metaphysics leaves no room for a supernatural being and explicitly asserts the secondary nature of consciousness. Religion and Objectivism are at cross currents every step of the philosophic way. Her philosophy is of a piece: you cannot reduce it to anti-emotionalism and liberty.
I do not share many prominent Objectivists fear of an impending theocracy. I think it will be a secular dictatorship long before the religionists can get a hold of the reins of power. But religion is hostile to the needs of man’s life and thus hostile to capitalism as such. Individual believers may espouse reason, egoism, and capitalism, but they are doing so in contradiction to their religion and against the express opinions of their church leaders.
I am glad you like Ayn Rand and Objectivism; I applaud your efforts to spread freedom. But you are not an Objectivist and can never be one until you accept the supremacy of reality and all that that entails. Her philosophy is beautiful and wonderful because of its integrated nature–do not cheapen it by taking it apart and re-assembling it Frankenstein-style.
Rick, I have known of you for years (first, from your billboards) and the recent news of your legal troubles reminded me of you. So, I Googled around and found your website. Regardless of whether or not you are guilty of any willful wrongdoing, I found this article interesting. I need to read Ayn’s books – my father did when I was young and I have always thought it would be worth my time since I enjoy philosophy and the like.
I guess I am merely posting to thank you for this article, since it piqued my curiosity, and I look forward to reading your article detailing how your faith fits into things, assuming your legal troubles do not preclude you from writing the alluded-to piece.
Good luck with everything, as always, I hope and pray that true justice is done, be that to your advantage or not!
Lives are successfully lived outside of movements and their shibboleths and unreasonable demands for organizational or formulaic loyalty. For the psychology of the true believer who immerses the self in a mass movement in order to forget the self, see Eric Hoffer’s True Believer. http://bit.ly/LmtRk
There are two separate issues here. One is the appropriate way to interact with people with whom one has substantial disagreements. The other is whether the epistemological contentions or assumptions of religion and religious faith have any rationally defensible basis.
Good article – BUT -
Still, most conservatives, libertarians and FreeCapitalist have their limit – they won’t cross, one final PC line which is too taboo to broach. Our corrupt AG, as many, many others, is a huge supporter of this most PC and most parasitic agenda. Are you? To do nothing about it and to say nothing concerning it’s abusive and anti-constitution, pro-socialist nature is likewise to support this parasitic anti-family agenda and Industry.
Will YOU (Rick too) cross this ultimate PC line of betrayal against this vital part of wildly and politically popular socialism/communism? Will you speak out on this PC agenda and its major corruption supported avidly by our AG, other AG’s and by most “leaders” here in Utah and across the nation:
http://www.mediaRADAR.org
&
http://www.true-equality.org
Yes, this mother of all PC agenda (more PC than even global warming) is about our anti-constituion, anti-family, anti-society, abusive, Domestic Violence(DV)/Divorce Industry. This Industry is one of the very few sanctioned unions/marriages left in our nation. This is the business marriage of convenience between corrupt and parasitic attorneys and abusive radical feminists, sucking the blood of all, in the name of saving you…
Ironically, I searched this web site and find NO reference exists to this most major of all PC enemies of the family, freedom and capitalism. Why in the world is this?
Your/our support, ignorance or denial of this is the final litmus test of what you/we profess to really be and stand for. Silence is likewise just as much a testament to your/our support of this vital part of socialism/communism. This DV/Divorce Industry’s main enemies are family, due-process, The Constitution, religion, capitalism, free speech…
The DV/Divorce Industry is hostile toward all of this which we supposedly hold dear. Yet we give this one, the worst and most PC of all, a free pass?
Why do we support it then? Why so avidly? Why are we so blind as to accept or ignore the rampant destruction and pillage of our own Village being committed by this hostile, socialist DV/Divorce Industry, right while it is claiming to be our saviors?
Ronald Reagan, Ezra Taft Benson (et al) would see this one from miles away, long before it even hit the radar (www.mediaRADAR.org). It would not, could not escape their notice and thus their open outrage, publicly. Why aren’t you/we as they would be on this? Is it because it is just too taboo, too PC (let’s talk about something else…)?
It makes most very uncomfortable to even think about crossing this PC line, AG Shurtleff’s favorite PC agenda. This IS the ultimate PC taboo line which most conservative and FreeCapitalists will not cross. This ultimate PC fear denotes their genuine stance on our constitution, family, society, free speech and free market.
Hi Rick,
Your experience discovering Rand’s ideas mirror my own. There are plenty of people who live their lives by Objectivist standards, may or may not call themselves Objectivists, and have a lot of fun living it. Drop me a line, I can tell you about many Objectivists who are really great people.
“Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission.” I was not aware that Rand had a mission. It was this type of thinking that prompted her to write Atlas Shrugged. Why is it we have to listen so so-called “Objectivists” complaining about their difficulty meshing their beliefs with an anti-belief philosophy. If Objectivism is that hard to understand, you should just admit it and move on. That is the rational thing to do.