Because Friends Shouldn’t Let Friends Play with Objectivism*.

At least not without close supervision. Prolonged or unchallenged exposure to objectivism can lead to all kinds of nastiness, often against yourself, close friends and loved ones, or your entire facebook community.

I’ve been off of blogging for a while because of engagement and wedding planning and moving and the working two jobs thing  (this is my busy season), but when I see friends quoting Ayn Rand on facebook, I just want to seize them by their virtual lapels and shake them awake.

I had one such experience today, so I’m going to pick up where I left off so very long ago with my “Atlas Revisited” project. (See here.)

Wait, I think I vaguely remember promising in that post that I would refrain from snarky and smug comments. And I will. Starting now.

So far, I’ve read most of the preface to the 35th Anniversary Edition (the one my dad bought for me when I graduated from high school, with the inscription “May this book inspire and sustain you as it has me.”) Already I have enough notes in the margins to start a book, and it’s hard to know where to start, but I’ll focus in on one passage for the sake of trying to keep this blog post readable.

As I believe I sort of mentioned before, one of my main areas of bafflement with the whole Ayn Rand movement is how many professing Christians have started adopting parts of her philosophy as their own. Ayn Rand herself claimed that you could not be both a disciple of Jesus and a disciple of her philosophy.  I even understand some of the psychological appeals of objectivism (wasn’t I a disciple myself for 10 years?), but they are vastly different from the rigors required of a serious Christian faith, and I’m puzzled at how many people don’t seem to see how obvious this is.

In the preface to the 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, Leonard Peikoff (Ayn Rand’s “intellectual heir”) mostly quotes from the journals in which Ayn was working out the premise and relationships driving her book, and he quotes this passage, straight from Ayn herself:

“Therefore, while a creator does and must worship Man (which means his own highest potentiality; which is his natural self-reverence), he must not make the mistake of thinking that this means the necessity to worship Mankind (as a collective).”

Let’s start here. In one sentence, Ayn has inverted the entire central message of the Bible. I don’t think I’m overstating the case. Consider this passage from Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV):

” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Emphasis mine.

In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, the first and primary commandment is always to love G-d first. Or, as it’s translated in the Ten Commandments: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Or, from Luke 4:8, “Jesus answered, ‘It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’ ‘ ” (He was quoting from Deuteronomy).

Ayn makes the case for worshiping “Man” instead of worshiping G-d. And specifically, worshiping the best in yourself but not in others, the very opposite of treating others as yourself. She’s not subtle about it. And who is this “Man” that Ayn has set up as a god? She calls him “the creator.”

“Man, at his highest potentiality, is realized and fulfilled within each creator himself….He alone or he and a few others like him are mankind, in the proper sense of being the proof of what man actually is, man at his best, the essential man, man at his highest possibility. (The rational being, who acts according to his nature).” Emphasis hers.

So there it is. The god-Man is a rational creature, apparently the only creature that properly falls under the category of mankind. Emphasis mine. I could go on at some length about how our rational faculties are only a small percentage of our brain, and that denying the rest of the human experience, the full range of human emotions for starters, creates a false expectation of reality, not to mention two-dimensional characters and wooden fiction, but I’ll save that for another post. Reigning in the snark beast.

Practically speaking, what does such a rational creature as Ayn’s god look like? In her own words, “I think I represent the proper integration of a complete human being. Anyway, this should be my lead for the character of John Galt” – {her hero in the story, ‘the ideal man – the consistent, the fully integrated, the perfect’ – I couldn’t make this up if I tried.} – “He, too, is a combination of an abstract philosopher and a practical inventor; the thinker and the man of action together…”

I’m sorry. I have great respect (truly, no sarcasm) for anyone who can type out a 1168-page work of fiction and then get it published. And then spawn a movement that lasts for decades. Let me not diminish the magnitude of Ms. Rand’s achievement in this respect. But does anyone else find it incredibly convenient for Ms. Rand’s philosophy that, aw shucks, her ideal Man, her god, looks just like her?

I believe in academic circles, you would call this anthropomorphism – the creation of gods who look like (and act like) people. Often some narrow, idealized aspect of what a person is. In Christianity, we call it idol worship. Ayn liked to think that she was doing something unprecedented in the history of humanity, and while she has achieved some very notable worldly success, let it also be noted that creating gods in your own image is as old as civilization itself. We used to make them out of bronze or gold; now we craft them from words.

Here’s something that I actually really appreciate about Ayn: she understood that your basic assumptions about life, death, and morality have very practical consequences for the way you live your life. I don’t have a direct quote for you on hand, but this theme shows up a lot in her writing – the consequences of belief. In this, she is actually in agreement with Jesus (“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”) Both Ayn and Jesus understand that what you believe is not necessarily what you say you believe or even think you believe – words and thoughts can lie. What you believe is what you do. This also sheds light on Jesus’s admonishment that “the work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (Jn 6:29)- if your true beliefs always show themselves in your actions, then excavating your real beliefs and holding them up for examination and submitting them to G-d for the renewing of your mind is truly work. And our behaviors betray our true beliefs more reliably than our words. Peter Rollins has a very challenging piece along that topic here. Anyway.

So when Ayn says that the proper object of worship for man is Man, she understands that this has very practical consequences in real life. Or, as Richard Rohr (a Franciscan monk) puts it, “Your image of G-d creates you.”

This is why it’s so important to me to tell people why I think that Ayn Rand is dangerous. I spent 10 years letting Ayn Rand’s conception of perfection shape me, and I grew smaller. In soul, spirit, and courage, my life got smaller. In some ways, I was lucky – my innate gifts are so unlike those worshiped by Ms. Rand that my spiritual failures were acute, and I was forced to address the inconsistencies early. I could have languished for years longer if I’d had a little bit more of a “rational” bent. Not that there’s anything wrong with having a rational nature; somebody has to keep us dreamers tied down to facts and sense. Even for people who are more rational by nature, though, Ms. Rand’s philosophy is ultimately limiting. While some rational types find a kind of affirmation in Ms. Rand’s writings that they struggle to find elsewhere, this intoxication (and Ms. Rand’s insistence that they are already superior to their lesser, less rational, brethren) can dissuade them from seeking to understand and celebrate human expression in all its forms.

I have tons more thoughts on this, but for now, here’s the take-away: If you’re in need of a Higher Power, don’t look to John Galt.

*[I am stupidly happy that spell check informs me that “objectivism” is not officially a word.]



Filed under Atlas Revisited, religion, Uncategorized

2 responses to “Because Friends Shouldn’t Let Friends Play with Objectivism*.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s