I recently finished reading Ayn Rand's classic novel, The Fountainhead.
Though I was immersed in the plot and interested in the characters, I read the novel with a twinge (sometimes it was more like a convulsive twitch) of doubt. The novel is not overtly allegorical, but all the elements are there. And they all combine to guide (maybe "strongarm" is a better term) readers to an understanding of Rand's thesis (something I prefer not to find in novels). To her credit, away from the pages of The Fountainhead, she never tried to deny her theory nor her use of novels (including another classic, Atlas Shrugged) as vehicles to express her philosophy.
In fact, she was so open about her philosophical ideals, that she founded her own school of philosophical thought: Objectivism.
Ayn Rand summarizes Objectivism like this:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
This philosophy is exhibited full force in The Fountainhead through the glorification of Howard Roark, an architect who flouts societal norms to pursue personal achievement. Roark is the "fountainhead" to which the title refers, the source from which all things flow. Why? Because he is willing to put himself first, to ignore the expectations of others and pursue only that which matters to him. His selfishness is glorified as a way of being true to oneself. (It's no surprise that Rand also wrote a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness.")
Objectivism is still championed today by the Ayn Rand Institute, which, according to its website( http://www.aynrand.org ), has a "two-pronged strategy" (it never specifies for what goal this "strategy" is designed) that includes "educational programs" to enable the institute to "find, train, and support individuals who thoroughly understand Ayn Rand's ideas" and "outreach programs" through which Rand's works are "disseminated...to the general public."
Wow, what kind of author wouldn't crave that kind of PR? Though unfortunately for her, Rand isn't alive to reap the financial benefits. She passed away in 1982, roughly eight months before I was born--not that this information is relevant in any way.
I'm not going to say that Ayn Rand's philosophy is wrong (at least, I won't say that so definitively), and I certainly won't claim that it is entirely lacking in merit. Rand was wiser than I ever will be; in Objectivism, she created something grandiose, something that could only be conceived in the mind of an introspective, observational, and extremely astute thinker.
But, that doesn't make her right.
Stephen Hawking, for example, might be able to write a confounding dissertation refuting the existence of gravity; he could espouse theories, formulas, theorems, and all kinds of data that would boggle my mind. Yet, even though I would never claim to be smarter, more capable of significant and profound thought, than Stephen Hawking, I could know that his thesis was wrong. Because he formed it on a faulty premise, one that doesn't allow for the existence of gravity.
Rand's philosophy, I would suggest, is also formed on a faulty premise--one that doesn't allow for the existence of God.
Taken from the Ayn Rand Institute's website, here are the essentials of Objectivism (Feel free to skip over number 4):
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
source: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
(And that is just the "Introduction.")
As I said earlier, I'm not going to argue that her whole theory is bogus. (For example, how can one argue with the suggestion that "facts are facts--independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears"?) But, again, I think her premise is flawed.
Rand's theory clearly does not allow for the existence of God. On the same ARI website mentioned above, within the "Essentials of Objectivism," one can find statements such as "Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural" and "Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism," defining mysticism as "any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of acquiring knowledge," and "Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control," which is then classified to include "God" as one of the forces beyond man's control.
As for the Christian idea of living one's life for God...a response to this can be found in Rand's view of ethics, which states "Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism--the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society."
These ideas become more interesting to me when I consider what 1 John 4:16 says:
"And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him" (NIV).
God is love. In the light of Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is interesting to think about this verse, because while Objectivism clearly does not allow for the existence of God, it also (not so coincidentally) leaves no room for the existence of love.
Of course the rejection of love isn't openly stated (Nowhere does it say, "Thus Objectivism rejects the belief in love..."). But think about it:
Point 1 says "Reality exists in facts."
Point 2 says that reason is the key to knowledge, and it limits reason to ideas that can be derived from the five senses.
Point 3 states that man exists only for himself.
Point 4 really just promotes Capitalism (undoubtedly because Rand barely escaped from newly Communist Russia in 1925).
Based on the first 3 points (the 4th point has no bearing on a conversation about any emotion, or things regarding man's individual experiences, since it is more concerned with man as an organized, cooperative body), I challenge anyone to find something in Rand's philosophy that allows for love. Reason? Is love reasonable? Reality, facts? What can be factual about love?
Love can't be directly connected to the ability to taste, touch, smell, see, or hear. Love can't be perfectly categorized, accurately measured, or even adequately compared. (How can one know what "love" feels like to another? It would be like knowing how much someone else enjoys the taste of lobster, or pistachio-flavored ice cream.)
I know these arguments could be made for other strong emotions, but I think there is a difference. Anger, for example, usually can be traced to a recognizable source. Love's origin is not nearly as easy to pinpoint. We also can feel love, sometimes inexplicably, for family members with whom our relationships are strained. Why? How?
Personally, I believe love might be the one emotion that exists completely detached from reason. No one decides to love someone because it's prudent, reasonable, the most logical step for achieving one's future goals. (Some might choose to marry for these reasons, but not to love.)
Though love can't be proven scientifically, or even philosophically (at least, I don't think it can), few would argue that love doesn't exist. Not even Ayn Rand would suggest this, regardless of what her philosophy says (or doesn't say). I can say this because even Howard Roark, Rand's "fountainhead," her "ideal man," acknowledges love for two people in her novel. How her ideal man can love, when he is supposed to function solely through the machinery of reason, is something she never bothers to explain. I would contend that it is something she can't explain. Because it just doesn't fit.
And this is where Objectivism breaks down. Love exists. None can prove it, but we know it to be true.
God's existence is something that I know I have felt, and something I can't prove. But God's existence is something I know to be true (And I don't mean "relativistic truth," as if it isn't true for others. I just mean I can't say I know that they know it to be true. One can't be certain about what others "know.") But God's existence is something I have felt deeply and truly, sort of like the way I feel love for (and from) my family, friends, and Barbie. I think there is an explanation for why these feelings are similar, and it goes back to 1 John: 4:16:
"God is love."
And I think everyone has felt that on some level, whether they know it or not. I don't think anyone can find fulfillment or purpose in Objectivism, in the idea that our own happiness should be our "moral purpose in life," that "productive achievement" is our "noblest activity," or even that "reason" is the only "absolute."
Because love is absolute; love is real. And God is love. To deny God is to deny love, and to deny love is to deny God. Either way, without God and without love, we would be left with nothing but ourselves. We would be left with only our ability to reason, our ability to achieve, and our own personal pursuit of happiness. We would be incapable of transcending Rand's doctrine of selfishness; we would be left with Objectivism.
If this were really the world we live in, one without God and without love, then Ayn Rand's philosophy would do a great job of categorizing and explaining it. Thankfully for all of us (despite what her theory claims), hers isn't a world of reality, but a product of her own construction.
Sort of like the impressive buildings designed by her beloved protagonist, her manifestation of Objectivism, architect Howard Roark.
As for Howard Roark, I admit I liked him. He demanded my admiration as I observed his resolve, hard-nosed determination, and unwavering belief in himself. I respected his unwillingness, or inability, to compromise.
And yet, I always felt that twinge, that convulsive twitch, of doubt. Howard Roark was created by Ayn Rand to exemplify a life lived rationally, relying solely on reason, but I couldn't escape the feeling that, page after page, no matter how hard Rand tried to make him real (and she often tried very hard, with long-winded diatribes that would promptly be edited down if the book were written today), Howard Roark just wasn't believable.
And that's because Howard Roarks do not exist in reality. Neither does Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Thank God.
--Thanks for Reading.
Note: If this were a book review, I would recommend The Fountainhead. It was Rand's philosophy with which I found contention. The story itself was intriguing and refreshing in many ways. I tried to refrain from providing too much plot detail in order to preserve the novelty for any prospective readers. If you're interested in reading it, don't let me discourage you. I enjoyed it.
4 comments:
Tyler, I liked your thoughts here and I thought you did really well at remaining objective yourself, while still providing ample evidence to counteract Rand's theory. Her theory is certainly a lonely one, that leaves man with little to live for, and really, no one to live with.
I need to read some of her stuff as well.
Oh Tyler!! After reading you email VERY carefully, I sensed that I was being put up for a challenge! Well after skimming over your blog like a Ouija board, and drawing out all that I deemed arguable, I was just tickled silly. Almost as tickled as the time I had my little sister play Ouija with me when we were kids in this big dark room and I convinced her that a woman named “Bloody Mary” was emerging out of a mirror at the opposite end of the room. Oh tickled I was! These are all jokes as you know I hold near and dear to my mind and health. Actually I found it very interesting that you were compelled to venture into the subject, because I too was magnetized to the subject while reading Rand (which I still am). You can check out my (substantially smaller) blog on the subject on my myspace. http://www.myspace.com/psychosupercharger What tickles me is how we wrote each of our takes on her philosophy without knowing of the others thoughts and by virtue of our personalities wrote something that was opposite from the other.
First off, I would like to draw on some of my general observations of objectivism and what is similar in each of our perspectives then delve into my advocation of her philosophy. As I have noticed in many philosophies, as well as many social perceptions, a binary or dichotomy is created. Rand believed that there were men great enough to be the center of their own universe. Them and everyone else. Nietzsche had his masters and his slaves. Camus had the Sisyphean figures that carried on with their lives in dignity and conversely there were those who were quick to resign. Good and Evil. Heros and Villians. To be objective is to have little to no emotional attachment to the subject, but to see it with, as you’ve quoted, reason. The objective man is devoid of feelings for something, but sees the value in it and how it will, in essence, be to his benefit.
This is very egocentrical, but if you place her philosophy on a historical spectrum you will see that it falls, quite appropriately, in a time when the country was on an industrial explosion. Great men were the CEOs of companies and the masterminds behind juggernauts like Carnegie Steel and J&L Steel. These men were egocentrical, cold hearted, and callous, but also smart and very successful! Much more than you can say for the slime that sit on the top nowadays like that scumbag Kenneth Lay! I think it is fascinating how Rand really congeals to this image of a person. By allowing your feelings govern your behavior you are relinquishing the upper hand or your strength, but to overcome your typical human faculties you become extraordinary. This, my friend, is where I can agree. Or maybe not agree, but find interest.
I have this friend who is all into this unconditional love thing. More specifically he is obsessed with the power that lies inside crystals. [he is kind of eccentricàwhich makes a humorous conflict between the two of us] So he is all about rocks… He carries this ‘crystal’ around his neck and goes around prophesizing this and that to everyone he encounters. His name is Ansieau. He is a 27 year old black playboy that lives in the hills of southeastern Ohio. I say playboy, because Ansieau is rather attractive, so his presentation seldom goes unnoticed. Anyway, he really pushes the subject about having this unconditional love for the earth and for people and for birds and shit like that. Well for me everything is conditional, but I find that I can’t help but get emotional about things even when it is entirely superfluous. Unconditional love to me just seems inappropriate and excessive. Like finding your father in the shower with another man. See! You didn’t even like reading that! Well that is how I feel about unconditional love. And your faulty premise you suggest. Therefore, Rand’s philosophy appeals to me in its utility. I find it useful in that it makes man more effective as a vehicle of society and production. It may seem prosaic to suggest that we must be productive to be great, but in many ways we do. I tend to be less productive because my damn emotions bog me down like an obese passenger pigeon.
And wait just a minute! I have to digress for a certain point of censure that I am just in knots over! Don’t ever call Ayn Rand’s writing a long winded diatribe!! This is not some literary fodder Tyler! I can reason with your objections to her philosophy but do not criticize her eloquence! Shoot! For a second I thought you were going into the no-no when you brought up Stephen Hawking. I thought you were going to explain how he could explain something you didn’t understand, but then you’d comeback with “Meet me at the courts Stephen we’ll see who’s boss.” But you didn’t and I respect that. Don’t worry neither one of us said it, but I cannot help what flies heavy in my subconscious. I just listen with patience and pension.
I have responded to a portion of the things that I want to respond to, but my time permits and happy hour is dwindling (Shakespeare invented that word!) away. I appreciate your thoughts and wish I would get more notices when you write things. It would be much better than getting these emails telling me that I can get bootleg prescription drugs cheaper, a date tonight, or some kind of enhancer…. Till next time. I love you.
In response to your post, mada6, I just want to clarify two things:
About the "long-winded diatribes" whose existence you vehemently denied...
I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, which I know you are reading, and you haven't read The Fountainhead...so, in regards to Rand's writing style or abilities, we are basing our opinions on different sources.
But I do find it amusing that you would feel certain that a long-winded diatribe could not exist in The Fountainhead.
Or maybe it was my tone which you resented.
Ayn Rand's a great writer. And she may be eloquent. Don't get me wrong.
But in a pivotal scene, Howard Roark speaks without pausing from page 677-685 (without even an insertion that says something like, "he had to stop and take a drink of water because he had been talking for nearly ten pages").
It's roughly eight pages of uninterrupted soliloquy. And the print in this book is small. That, in my opinion, is a long-winded diatribe. Especially since Rand used those pages to promote Objectivism in the same manner she would if she had been writing an essay.
And I stand by what I wrote: If she wrote that today, editors would have shredded it, saying "Your character doesn't need to talk for 8 pages. If you want to write a persuasive essay, do it somewhere else."
If that shows a lack of respect for Ayn Rand, then I guess it does. She's a better writer than I am, and I do respect her. But I didn't like stumbling upon an essay in the conclusion of my novel.
And this wasn't the only one; another character also went on a long-winded rampage (is "rampage" less offensive?) when he realized he hadn't become the ideal man he could have been. And that's why I made "long-winded diatribes" plural.
As for your comment about unconditional love. I just wanted to briefly clarify that I didn't argue for unconditional love anywhere in this post. Rather, I just tried to show that Rand's philosophy leaves no room for love at all. Even though Howard Roark (and her own life) suggests this to be false.
And did you really have to mention enhancement pills and finding one's father in the shower with another man all in one comment?
Thanks to you, my blog just lost its PG-13 rating.
Oh, and I wasn't challenging you. I was just interested in the differing opinion I knew you would possess.
Well I would watch out for the next few months, because I wrote the institute about all that stuff you were saying about Ms. Rand. Oh they are hot! I even took the liberty to forward them you phone number and address. MUHAHA! You thought I asked for your address to send letters and chocolates didn’t you!? Trust me, when I spoke to ARI’s fountainhead on the phone I could sense the stroke setting in. He was straight apoplectic! Absolutely appalled Tyler… appalled. On another note I don’t think that the main character’s tendency to ramble on was excessive. Rand said that there is a “clarity of mind in violent emotion” that is felt by those great objective characters of hers. Much like the soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays e.g. Macbeth and King Lear. Kind of like when I hop out or bed in the middle of the night dictating about my contentions against the egregious upper class or the discontinuation of my favorite cigarettes. I guess that the objectivistic character isn’t completely devoid of emotion. And can you believe that they actually have an institute? I hope I have an institute governed by my personal philosophy after I pass. Unfortunately, I presuppose it will most likely turn out something like a Betty Ford Clinic.
I must apologize for the whole ratings thing. I know that meant a lot to you. Now that the burden is gone I am sure you feel much better. You being into the editing thing, I just assumed that you would be cutting out some of the good stuff out anyways.
Back to the academic situation at hand… The monologues that are prevalent in (what I am gathering) both of these literary masterpieces are powerful vehicles of thoughtful exploration. Philosophy is difficult to capture with concision; rather expatiation can be quite necessary. There is one lengthy dialogue in Atlas Shrugged that (doesn’t go on for 5 pages but…) threads the speaker’s objective view point in and out of a variety of subjects. This narrows and further refines what objectivism is. It is interesting in the way pleasure is conceived. Carnal pleasures are viewed as the lowest of all pleasures, for it is man’s way of reverting back to his primal instincts. Happiness seems to be obtained through control. Altruism cannot be harnessed in objectivism for the reason that the energy is channeled away from the self. Rand seems to believe that the more energy that is channeled inward the more power one has. If one is to trouble themselves with the fodder of society then that power is depleted.
I do appreciate the use of “rampage” a little better than diatribe. Rampage is powerful and it reminds me of those hours I spent in front of my parents television climbing buildings and eating mini blonds two fists at a time! Those were the days. I have unlocked my myspace account so you can view it too. ;) enjoy!
Post a Comment