I admit, I’ve been working on this book for more than a year. As much as it’s taking me FOREVER to get through it, I continue to return back to it. Without fail, I am indulging in every single word– savoring it. Perhaps it’s not a novel to be read quickly. One must digest the philosophy in it.
It reads like a novel. It’s a story of business, ethics, science, and morals. The lead character– though there are many– is a staunch business woman. She’s both hard and sexy. She is brilliant and seeks to overcome the adversity imposed upon her by a government that regulates the industry so that “all is fair.”
In this book, Rand best expresses her philosophy, self-named “objectivism.”
I love this book. In a contrary vein, I don’t particularly agree with Objectivism, mostly because it eliminates all form of spirituality or soul. Taken from The Ayn Rand Institute, here is the basic gist of Objectivism, as explained by Ayn herself, followed with my notes in italics:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
She then translated those terms into familiar language:
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:
Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
My note: You may already see here where I stray from agreeing with her beliefs. I am very spiritual and believe that I create reality. It’s the difference between perceiving life in absolutes (which personally I believe there are none) and through the lens of logic (emotion is a perfected experience in humans) versus embodying the psychology of the human experience. When you see it through the lens of psychology and human imperfection, it becomes easy to identify how easy it is to believe that we are powerful creators. Being a powerful creator allows you to own your emotions and circumstance. It allows you to CHOOSE mental wellness or joy. It works much better for me, at least.
Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
My note: I believe there is much to be said about intuition and miracles. Some things are not rational. Some good examples of this are quantum physics, outer space, PMS and other hormonally induced behaviors, and a mother’s love.
Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
My note: Is it not through CHOICE you can either intend to better your experience or not? This is what I refer to as powerful creation. Working hard to achieve a goal is nothing less than creating your own reality. You may not be able to snap your fingers and then what you will is truth– no, you may also have to perform the necessary steps to get what you want from this lifetime.
Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
My note: In this facet, I concur. Selfish as this may sound, *I* am the only person who really will always keep my best interests in mind. Because I know my desires so thoroughly, as long as I choose to represent my desires in all of my decisions, my behaviors will always be in alignment of what I wish for. Of course, there are many people who know their desires but refuse to uphold them for lack of confidence or for belief that someone else’s interest is more worthy of fruition. That, to me, is completely irrational. 
Politics
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force—i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
My note: I am a Democrat. *chuckle* There are disclaimers here, though. I believe that if we all financially contribute to a governmental (socially approved) agenda through taxes, we should all get a piece of the pie. Collectively gather funding for certain agendas: education, environmentalism, health care (within limitations), national parks, etc., and then we can all enjoy it. Alone we may not be able to publicly enjoy the outdoors… we have to work together. Of course this assumes that all people who participate in decision making (i.e. voting) has their vote considered. Which isn’t at all where we’re at now. Socialism in the form of the aforementioned priorities could significantly increase the quality of life for all… At the same time, those who do not contribute should not reap the reward of the collective whole.
Esthetics
“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself—not as a means to any further end.”
My note: and my, how beautifully she’s presented these characters. Even once I finally complete this book, I will probably have to pick it up and read it again. Beautiful. Every single word. A real work of art. Hooray for amazing writers!!!
13 Responses to “What I’m currently reading…”
Leave a Reply
July 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I’m curious, you say, in response to AR’s metaphysics:
“Being a powerful creator allows you to own your emotions and circumstance. It allows you to CHOOSE mental wellness or joy. It works much better for me, at least. ”
and later, in epistemology you say:
“You may not be able to snap your fingers and then what you will is truth– no, you may also have to perform the necessary steps to get what you want from this lifetime.”
My intention is not to troll, I’m not being all savante and, ‘Well clearly, you say this here, and that there, and as any /intelligent/ person knows’… you know. I’m not trying to bully you.
But, I do have a question:
Well, see, what the Objectivist metaphysics means, is that you can’t will a thing into a being. There’s no use in arguing that something should be some way because you want it to be: you’ve actually got to do something about it.
And see, that’s what you seem to be saying in your second quote there - essentially, you’re agreeing with Ayn Rand’s metaphysics, that man’s role is not to create reality, but to choose the correct action in /response/ to reality: to base his actions off what he perceives.
When she says you can’t eat your cake and have it to, she means if, in reality, you have eaten your cake, it can’t also still be on your plate, no matter how many mental or physical gymnastics you perform.
So my question is more of a statement: do you agree with my assessment of hers and your metaphysics?
July 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Also, on the subject of Atlas Shrugged itself: it’s a wonderful book to savour, but it’s better to just get through it and appreciate it all unfolding and then knitting together into the great climax.
Then, go back and re-read it, with the mode, “I shall look for element x”. For example, re-reading it looking for all instances of the way a character’s use of language reflects his moral character; or the way Hank Rearden is the American spirit, from the Revolutionary 1776 to its bound up degraded state in the 20th Century.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Yay! Rory! I appreciate your comment!
So, to answer your first question: Emotion is a lens through which we perceive our experience. If I am feeling sad, then all of my experience has the tint of my sadness. Similarly, if I am feeling joyous, all things I go through are tinted with that underlying joy. It makes the difference of attitude or perspective.
For example: Let’s say I get a flat tire on the way to work. I am stranded in a neighborhood I neither know nor trust. If my attitude is one of sadness, I will perceive the experience as just another damper on my day. I will be afraid and wary of the person who pulls up to help, or I will sit in my car, petrified because there is no one to help. I will feel frantic, maybe calling people around me to see if they can come out and help.
On the other hand, let’s say the SAME thing happens while I am in the state of JOY. I will look at the process as an adventure– perhaps an opportunity to meet a new kind person, or as an opportunity to prove that I really can get out and change my tire. I can see it as a chance to prove that “I CAN” rather than feel devastated.
THIS is how we create our reality. What this does is separates every single personal experience into a subjective situation. What is bad for one person can be completely good for another.
Being a powerful creator does not mean that I will decide to wake up tomorrow and be rich– but not have to actually behave in a way that makes me rich. Instead, it forces you to come up with your own definition of “rich.” It forces you to be motivated to attain that level of “rich” and it gives you the attitude that pushes you (or motivates you) to fall into alignment with your desires. You cannot say, “I wish to have a million dollars by the time I’m 30,” and then sit on your butt and watch Jerry Springer all day long.
So in many ways, yes, I agree with AR’s metaphysical reality. We live in a physical world, where every action requires an equal reaction. While I do believe in magic and the power of prayer and miracles, I do not believe that any of us (at this time in our world experience) are able to wave a magic wand and ‘wa-lah’ there’s an elephant. Perhaps this was true in the past, or perhaps it will be true in the future. However, because this is a phenomenon that we are unwilling to believe is possible, we are not likely to observe it here at this time.
As for AR’s interpretation, I am not well versed– I only looked up and read snippets from the ARI website. I am intrigued by her because she was obviously an articulate and intelligent author, and I appreciate her sentiments expressed thus far in the book.
Even if I don’t necessarily agree with all of her positions in her philosophy, I’m certain it behooves me to learn it. To make an educated decision on what it is you believe, you must also know what it is that you do not believe!
July 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I think Ayn Rand was very clear on what she did not believe!
While growing up in Russia she witnessed the fall of the Tsar dynasty, the Soviet revolution and the Civil War that followed - it’s what made her avowed to leave that country and discover what it was that made such horrors possible, and conversely, what made all the wonders and wealth of America possible.
Thanks for elucidating on your thoughts. Now I know what you believe, well, let me just say you will probably have quite a tough time getting through Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
What you profess is what she called range-of-the-moment living - focusing on whatever emotion, thought or subject happens to have your attention, and not thinking beyond the immediate moment. She was all for establishing a primacy of reason consciousness in your life, which means not being subject to your emotional states, but instead on perceiving reality, identifying it correctly, judging it, and acting on your judgement.
That’s all quite a mouthfull, but if you can grasp the meaning there, essentially, the two of you are diametrically opposed.
But, as Leonard Peikoff says, she’s a bloody interesting woman, and even if you don’t agree with everything she said, you can’t deny that it was worth listening to!
July 10th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Agreed, she IS terribly interesting.
And contrary to what you said, I likely won’t struggle with learning her philosophy. To discover those who disagree with you yet can clearly and respectfully articulate what they believe is a pearl– so much better to see things from someone else’s perspective than to constantly surround yourself with agreeable people.
We are not learning without contrast.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I love that you know much about her philosophy, by the way.
I’m not so certain that humanity is filled with REASON. Should we ideally strive for logic & reason? Probably. Is that what humans are inclined to do? Doubtful.
It would be lovely if there were fewer of us– and if we were all smarter than we are.
But then, I can’t just snap my fingers and make it so. *wink*
Instead, I believe that as a collective whole, we are emotional and impulsive creatures. To counter that, I think that taking responsibility for your experience (my philosophy) can give you the reins on your emotional experience– or at least give you the cognizance to be aware of them and how it makes you perceive things.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I have not read Atlas Shurgged, but I did read “The FountainHead”. It was a complex read, but a good one - much the way you feel after climbing a mountain, after grunting the whole way up. I do not however - in the least - agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophies. For one, I am a Christian, so that would point out glaringly obvious objections. Secondly, the theory that each person’s ultimate goal is to care only about oneself and what one individual can accomplish (You are “The FountainHead”) leaves no room for charity, giving or loving ANYONE but yourself. If the purpose of life is simply to be the BEST you can be, murdering someone to get there would be perfectly fine. There is no room for compassion when perfection is the ONLY goal.
*Snicker*** I have to note one of my favorite South Park lines..Mr. Garrison has just learned to read, and he emerges from the room and says: “Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of crap, I am never reading again” - I thought you would enjoy that as you are now getting through it.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
*laughing*
Of course, that is a hilarious Mr Garrison line!!!
As much as I may or may not particularly agree, I LOVE her ability to write. She is possibly the most talented author I’ve read. Her mastery of the language is sublime!
July 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I agree that she is VERY talented and has really carved out her own niche in the author world. It just kind of made me want to bang my head aganist a wall. A little.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Bang harder.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Hee hee, RG. I am TOTALLY enjoying Atlas Shrugged. I read it while I ride the bus. (as long as I’m not being interrupted by someone who finds a person with earphones on & reading a book as a prime person to chat with)
Sadly, I drove to work today.
I left the book at home so I would have less to carry.
Even more sadly, I discovered that the bookmark is in my bag with me– and the book is at home. I lost my place. Doh! (I’ll find it, it can’t be THAT hard. There are only five million pages in this novel.)
July 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“The Fountainhead” was a great read, her analysis of the “creators” and “parasites” was thought provoking without delving too much into the philosophy. I understand that “Atlas Shrugged” deals with those same issues. You’ll get a lot out of the book POHA, happy reading!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I’ll definitely need to read “The Fountainhead” one day. Seriously, I’m in love with this writer!!!! (It’s soooo wrong!)