Ayn Rand Concerning Mysticism

Ayn Rand Concerning 'Mysticism'

Mental Health vs Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice

Ayn Rand is a controversial figure with what is considered by most to be a very radical set of beliefs to live by.  As posted here on minds, I believe that the philosophy of selfishness is an admiral and important one to live by; and that most live without realizing.  When an action is taken which benefits one's interests, it is by definition a selfish one.  These ideas, concerning what 'selfishness' means, are contained in the first chapter of her book, "The Virtue of Selfishness."  While this idea is touched upon in chapter one, in the next chapter "Mental Health vs. Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," the idea is more fully fleshed out.

Her Belief Concerning the Mystics/Religious

The beliefs, in her own words, are enumerated in five points.  They are:

1. For man's maintenance of life and self-esteem, control of reason must be exercised; faith rests reason from man's grasp.
2. Man's need for self-esteem requires a sense of control over reality
3. For Man's life and self-esteem, it is required that man's concern be with reality and this earth and not on morality based on obtaining some imaginary 'promised land.'
4. For quality of life and self-esteem, man must be able to take pride in his or her power to think and power to live; we are instead taught that morality forbids pride and counts it among the gravest of sins.
5. For self-esteem, man must be loyal to himself, his values, and his life and not self-sacrifice.

These tenets are complex and necessitate a reading to adequately understand her position.  More clarification will be provided upon questioning, but the above are the main ideas.  One thought which permeates the belief is that self-sacrifice is always evil in that you are giving up a greater thing in order to get a lesser.

My Rebuttal

From my understanding, Ayn has a warped view of Christianity.  It does not help that there are so many flavors of Christianity, many of which could be validly argued to be something other than Christian, and so maybe her view is in keeping with some segment I am not aware of; even if so, it would not be mainstream.

First, her idea that a Christian cannot exercise reason on the world.  There are a couple of avenues this idea can take.  First, you have proven mistakes made in the past from misunderstandings from the Bible and those who today who fit this view of Christianity, second, the idea that faith is a commitment to ideas which cannot be tested. 

Most people who read the Bible for direction in life, interpret it in a way which fits their understanding of the world.  When humans were less advanced, some of these 'understandings' were incorrect; religion used to determine guilt or the belief that the world was flat as examples.  While some Christians do see their duty as to champion religious dogma without inspection, it is a misunderstanding of 'faith' and is counter to scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and is dangerously close to elevating man above God.

As for faith, pretend that matter didn't come from nothing (or that measurably minute quantum fluctuations did not give rise to all detectable matter) and that there is an ultimate being that is beyond our comprehension.  Also pretend that the setup is similar to testing your child for obedience; you do not tell them you are watching so that you get to view them in their natural habitat (unassailable evidence negates faith).  This is the scenario that I believe most Christians adhere to with perhaps some minor modifications.  My question to Ayn Rand is how does this belief effect one's everyday rationalization or self-esteem?  It is a rational conclusion based on perceived impossibilities of nature which Science cannot currently explain.

Idea number two: Man's self-esteem predicates a need for a sense of control over reality:

Man's need of self-esteem entails the need for a sense of control over reality - but no control is possible in a universe which, by one's own concession, contains the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless, a universe in which one is at the mercy of ghosts and demons, in which one must deal, not with the unknown, but with the unknowable; no control is possible if man proposes, but a ghost disposes; no control is possible if the universe is a haunted house. (Rand 43)

These are the ideas which I see her putting forth:

1. self-esteem requires at least a modicum of control over reality.
2. Miracles negatively impact self-esteem
3. Ignorance ("causeless") of the inner workings of the universe harm self-esteem
4. Christians believe God makes them do certain activities (at mercy of ghosts)
5. Christians believe the Devil makes them do certain activities (at mercy of demons)
6. Scientists may claim a lack of knowledge but not the inability to eventually know all
7. There are other entities whose will/activity supersedes the desires of humans

(1)Why is control necessary for someone to have self-esteem?  Isn't one source for self-esteem to be in how one faces adversity?  Isn't it also true that very few individuals, let alone humanists, consciously will conflict into their lives (lack of control)?  (2)How would a miracle negate one's self-esteem?  (3)Do scientists know all about everything?  Wouldn't this apply to them as well?  (4)God no longer believes in free will (not referring to some Southern Baptists)?  (5)Are Christians the children of God or the Devil?  (6)Does any scientist really believe that all will ever be known or that one individual can even know all current knowledge?  Do Christians believe that all will be known to them upon death?  (7)Do secularists not believe they are within the dominion of nature and that nature can suddenly end them? 
Maybe her overall point is being missed, but the arguments seem weak at best without a healthy look at how these same accusations apply to secular humanists or non-mystic.

The third idea deals with the source of one's morality; whether it is based on getting into paradise or more secular in nature.  She puts forward that there is only one reality and for an individual to not be conscious of it is to not be conscious at all.  Again, this assumes that a person who believes in the God and/or the afterlife is incapable of being fully in the here-and-now.  She then goes on to make many absurd claims regarding the religious:

• a sin to use one's mind
• a sin to be in intellectual focus
• a sin to make the earth livable
• a sin to work and act
• a sin to sustain and enjoy life

It would be nice for there to be supporting evidence for these statements instead of accusations that are without merit (links above point to verses saying the opposite).

The next claim is that man must be able to have pride in his own abilities and that this is counted a sin.  There are many Biblical uses of the word 'pride.'  As can be seen, in general these are not describing taking pleasure in what one accomplishes, but being insolent, arrogant, and so on.  Galatians 6:4 puts the lie to this insidious insinuation.

The final position put forward against religion is that man must be loyal to himself and his life and that this precludes him from any self-sacrifice.  In order for this idea to be true, it would entail a Christian, or anyone else who is religious, to follow beliefs and tenets that they do not believe or that they believe are harmful to themselves and their values.  That is the essence of 'not being true to oneself.'  While this is the case for those who are merely following the example of someone they admire, or anyone who doesn't truly believe, it does not apply to the vast amount of those who are religious.  Equating hardship with a lack of belief is utter stupidity.  Sometimes it is hard to resist beating some attribute out of an individual met in life, but that does not mean resisting the initial temptation and pursuing a more civil approach is against out own interest.

For the second part of this supposition, self-sacrifice, the question needs to be asked, "what exactly is meant?"  Her version implies that the individual is only doing the sacrificing because it has been commanded of them (this is similar to the previous idea that a religious person is not being loyal to his or herself); in addition, it does not take into account any secondary concerns such as what or who is being sacrificed.  From the outside looking in, is tithing a sacrifice?  Of course, but not to a Christian.  Instead, it is seen as a way to spread the gospel to others in the community/world (please do not reference prosperity preachers... the Bible would seem to point out how hypocritical these mega rich pastors are).

Final Thoughts

I believe that her philosophy concerning selfishness is one that has merit.  I believe that it is easy to wrongly use the philosophy to be evil, but the philosophy itself, in my opinion, holds water.  It is also a weapon to be used against socialism; while that is not justification in its own right, it is a mighty point in its favor.  However, when it comes to 'mysticism,' it seems she is ignorant, blind, purposefully caustic, or willfully subverting meaning to achieve her desired end.  Regardless of the cause, the result is the same: it is a bastardization of at least one religion and so a detriment to what is good about the rest of the 'selfish' philosophy.

She makes one final note in this chapter, saying:

If the advocates of these doctrines bear a grave moral responsibility, there is a group who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still:  the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest - who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements - who shrug off their professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.

So, many of the 'professionals' backing the idea of: everyone gets a trophy, don't punish children, children can decide their sex, etc.. these people should set the standard for morality and structures of belief?

Issues with the Libertarian Philosophy

First, I am not an expert on the Libertarian philosophy. An easy way to 'defeat' an idea is to paint a weaker picture than actually exists. In an effort to avoid this happening inadvertently, and to be completely transparent, I went to the CATO Institute for the system of beliefs and definitions.  In addition, there are many different kinds of Libertarians and so some of these arguments may not apply to all readers.

As put forth by the CATO Institute, there are nine main pillars to the Libertarian philosophy:

1. Individualism
2. Individual Rights
3. Spontaneous Order
4. Rule of Law
5. Limited Government
6. Free Markets
7. Virtue of Production
8. Natural Harmony of Interests
9. Peace

I believe that most Conservatives will agree with the definitions and ideas behind the first two pillars: the individual should be responsible for his or her choices in life and rights are intrinsic to the individual instead of being granted by a benevolent government.  Most Conservatives, and even some liberals, do not believe the government should be subsidizing the poor choices of others; that opportunities should be the focus instead of outcomes.  The issue starts at pillar 3.

Spontaneous order is where the philosophy starts to become vague.  Which levels of government would be modified/removed (details please)?  What is the perceived reactions to these changes?  Are there entities in society currently breaking law even with a system in place to catch them?  Will order 'spontaneously' result once that system of 'oppression' has been removed?  Wasn't the time period heralded by the CATO Institute one of barbarity and lawlessness?  Is it possible to add one more question to this paragraph?

Most often the response is that the above objections do not give any government the right to take what another has earned.  If you mention something along the lines of 'social contract' then they ask you to show them where they have signed as if every newborn or eighteen-year-old is asked for their input and then assigned to a society which perfectly matches what they are willing to agree to.  To flip this on its head, is the governmental structure that we have now not Libertarian on a local, state, and national scale?  Have we not voted for people who have our values to represent us?  Another angle, if we imagine a libertarian system where the local community is the highest level of government, could someone not validly argue that they are being oppressed if the community has agreed to a standard they personally do not believe in?

Is there a difference between a public good and a commodity?  The police, national guard, and military would be public goods while free phones, medical, and welfare are commodities.  One set is listed within the Constitution while the other is an overreach by government and does enter the domain of thievery. 

The fourth pillar, Rule of Law, seems to attempt to clarify the previous but is superbly insufficient.  For convenience sake, this is the fourth tenet:

Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Do we not already have a "society of liberty under law?"  The institute defines this as a society which individuals are free to do what they want as long as they respect the equal rights of others.  Can I currently, according to the Constitution, violate someone's rights?  There's the 'spontaneous' word again... who has developed these legal rules?  What is meant by "arbitrary commands?"  Is a Libertarian society going to be one in which crooked officials no longer exist?  Isn't this how current laws are circumnavigated?  With people in power abusing that power?

I have seen some argue that this would refer to gay, abortion, and drug topics.  I think that most Conservatives would argue that that scenario is how the country is supposed to work - States should have a much larger say in what goes on than they currently do, at least in issues like gay marriage and drugs.  As for abortion, that becomes a matter of life and death and so is argued to not be a Libertarian hands-off policy but rather one which enters the domain of the State.

Pillar five, again vague, basically outlines the original setup of the federal government.  There are three branches which are a checks upon each other and constricted by the Constitution.  It has now become a system which allows anything to happen which has not been forbidden by the Constitution (and that is eroding as well) with the three branches ignoring the others.  This means there needs to be a reset instead of a demolition of the Constitution with power going to whomever is able to grasp it at the local level.  You want a system which can be easily controlled by the rich?  Advocate for this incarnation of Libertarianism.

Pillar six is one that every Conservative should be able to support.  Unfortunately, too many want to force their idea of what is right onto everyone else.  You want to open a shop?  You have to jump through these dozen hoops.  You want to be a day trader?  You've got to have 25k in the account before you can move more than five round trip transactions within a week or we'll put a freeze on your account for a few months.  These types of regulations are what stifles business and wealth creation and one reason for President Trump's two regulations gone for every new one passed.

Pillar seven is so close to being a great Libertarian tenet but utterly fails due again  to vagueness.  Does the national military count in those described as "parasites" and '"non-producers?"  I think that one would have to say yes based on what has been laid out so far.  This could be taken to mean that all government should be abandoned, that government should be much smaller, or some other governmental change.  It seems written in a way to pull those people who are 'against the man' without telling them exactly, or even roughly, what shape the new system would take.

Pillar eight is absolute and complete bullshit:

Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person’s individual plans — which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on — may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.

"If you would only give Libertarianism a chance, everyone would be peaceful and love one another!"  No, the snakes would still be snakes.  Instead of trying to influence government to give them the advantage, they would be partnering up with the local power.  This is why I love the sentiment behind making government small.  There's a saying that I can't remember enough of to find on google.  It roughly says that lobbyists lobby because government is powerful.  If instead government was weak, no one would lobby because it would be a waste of time and resources.

The last pillar, number nine, is again vague.  This would seem to hint at the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) without actually listing it by name.  This principle is basically pacifism but it adds the possibility of forceful defense.  This means that you must first be transgressed before you can take any action - even threats of action.  This could be interpreted to say that if the attack on Pearl Harbor had never happened, we should not have entered the war to stop Hitler.  There are other objections listed here.

I simply do not get the purpose of the Libertarian movement.  If it is only about limiting government, push for it to move back to the original intent: three branches constrained by the Constitution.  Since this is not what they strive for, it seems to imply that they are after a lot more - a total removal of government, a complete trust in the benevolence of foreign powers, and the inherent goodness of the country's citizens when all 'coercive' forces have been removed.  As stated at the beginning, it is very possible, and even likely, that my understanding of the philosophy is inadequate and as a result, a misrepresentation.  This is one major reason for the post.  I have long considered myself to be a Libertarian... until I actually looked into what I am supposed to believe.