Sacred Ego

• Yaron Brook on PJTV this week discussing job growth (and the lack thereof) in the past decade. http://www.pjtv.com/v/2916 #
• Elan Journo, over at Voices for Reason, helps Obama connect the dots on the recent series of terrorist attacks. http://bit.ly/6VgpEu #

The 131st edition of The Objectivist Roundup has been posted over at Titanic Deck Chairs. While you’re over there – make sure you check out his post Kleist and Kant: The Destructive Nature of Anti-Reason Philosophy. It’s a fantastic exposition on the evil that Kant and his philosophy unleashed on this world.

Yaron Brook discusses the approach the US should be taking in our war against Islamofascism in January’s Call to Action. The video is below. As he mentions in it, we’ve gone over 8 years now and still have yet to even attempt to deal with the two states that are the chief sponsors and exporters of jihad, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Judging by the American people’s growing passivity on this topic, I don’t think we will – at least until the next catastrophic attack against us is executed. The very least we should be doing is fully supporting and enabling the internal opposition that has been growing for 6 months within Iran and help them to overthrow that regime.

What do we have instead? A president who refuses to take sides on the issue, in the process granting the genocidal maniacs in control of that regime moral equivalency with the civilian protesters seeking to throw off the bonds of tyranny. As I, and other objectivists have argued for quite some time now, we need a foreign policy based on rational self defense that unshackles us from the self imposed chains we’ve donned in the name of altuism.

• Harry Binswanger of ARI on Glenn Beck last week talking about terrorism and even more gov't spending. http://bit.ly/6JBt72 #
• Yaron Brook and John Allison were on Stossel last week discussing Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. Watch it here: http://youtu.be/7QmAzEsrtyo?a #
• Robert Tracinski on the corrupt process that will bring us ObamaCare: http://j.mp/4OTnFp #

• Rational Jenn has posted the "Best of 2009" Objectivist Roundup. My post "My Journey to Objectivism" is included – http://bit.ly/8ZVEFy #
• Capitalism – the Decade's Biggest Loser. A great article on the ever increasing idea that the Gov't must save us all. http://bit.ly/8Mwfrm #

Welcome to Sacred Ego – a blog dedicated to the discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and its continuing relevancy to the world around us. My wife and I started another blog, John & Ansley, at the beginning of last year with the intentions of writing about both our everyday family life and views on parenting as well as Objectivism, politics and current events. We did exactly that during 2009, however, we’ve decided to separate the two foci, and leave John & Ansley to be family/parenting focused and have this site be focused exclusively on Objectivism, and spreading understanding of the philosophy to more people. I’ve moved all of the relevant content from John and Ansley over here, and you can browse through the archives, if you like, to see examples of some of the stuff I’ve written about in the past. I plan on expanding on that quite a bit with more links of interest and shorter posts as well as the longer discussions I have generally written in the past.

So – stay tuned. I hope you’ll like what is on the way!

This post today over at Rational Jenn’s blog really struck a chord with me. Not the Disney World part so much (have fun Jenn and fam!), but the section where she quotes Dr. Peikoff on the Benevolent Universe Premise in Objectivism. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, it means pretty much exactly what you would think it means. From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise.

The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.

Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance—they do not reveal the nature of reality. Ayn Rand’s heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically. You remember when Dagny asks Ragnar in the valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea, and he answers (I quote just part of this passage):

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life.”

Now – I spent quite a few years recreationally studying Objectivism before getting more serious with it a few years ago. I’ve read most of Rand’s work and am about half way through Peikoff’s OPAR, and while I had heard this term associated with Objectivism before, I had yet to read the entire quote above until today.

In doing so, I felt a familiar surge of emotion, best described as joy (although that seems to miss the mark slightly), as I realized that here was the perfect expression of my views of the world. As Ayn Rand says, “An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises.” Objectivists recognize that actions which further man’s life are good and those which destroy man’s life are evil. We also know that rational men can ascertain what those actions are, and we know that when we act accordingly, we will achieve happiness and fulfillment in this life. Ours is not an existence doomed to suffering, always longing for some mysterious afterlife where everyone dwells in unending bliss. We strive to achieve happiness in this life, the only one that exists.

I use the word “familiar” above quite purposefully, for those four paragraphs encompass much of the feeling I got when I initially read Atlas Shrugged a decade ago, my first summer in college. It was electric, as if I’d had all of these thoughts and questions rolling around in my head my entire life and this book was the expression of everything I’d felt for so long but had been unable to put into words. It’s still hard for me to fully relay exactly how I felt that summer, but perhaps this sums it up most succinctly:

These are Heroes.

And this was their creed: “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

This also set into motion within me an intense internal debate which lasted for almost 8 years. As I began to read more of Rand’s purely philosophic works, such as Capitalism: Who Needs It and Selfishness, The Unknown Ideal, it became increasingly obvious that there were a number of fundamental conflicts between Objectivism and my Christian upbringing.

Is man a fundamentally flawed creature, cursed by his very nature to always live in sin, or is man a heroic being who can, by choosing to use his rational faculties, discover what values lead to a virtuous and happy life?

Is man, in essence, able to “save” himself or must he rely upon a 2000 year old sacrifice?

Should man be damned for all eternity for daring to obtain the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or does obtaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil unlock the ability of man to lead a life filled with success, virtue and happiness?

Must man wait to find true happiness in some afterlife, or can he find that happiness here on Earth?

Must he turn the other cheek, or demand justice?

Is pride a Virtue, or a Deadly Sin?

Should man live his life for the sake of others, or should he make his own life his highest value?

Is love of money the root of all evil, or is it the root of all good?

Do I choose Happiness in Life?

Or do I choose Happiness in Death?

As I struggled with these conflicts (and many more), I would inevitably come back to the same conclusion – I choose life, and I choose to seek my own happiness.

There were, however, many times during this struggle where I evaded what I knew was right and tried to find some sort of “happy medium” where I could fit the Objectivist Ethics into some sort of package that still had room for a god. Do you know how alone you feel when you realize that the entity you’ve been told your entire life was watching over you and answering your prayers is simply a human creation? At least for me, it wasn’t an easy realization to come to.

The tipping point, however, came a couple of months after my son, Charlie, was born two years ago. I had discovered the Ayn Rand Institute and the ARC Lecture Series and had been watching them after the rest of the house had gone to bed for the night. One night, I started Onkar Ghate’s 2006 lecture “Religion and Morality”, and by the time he was halfway done, I knew that there was no turning back. As I listened to him talk about God’s demand that Abraham murder his only son to show his dedication, I looked towards my son’s room. How could God demand that? And HOW IN THE WORLD could Abraham agree to it? And, most importantly, HOW THE HELL HAS THIS STORY BEEN TAUGHT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BY 3 RELIGIONS ACROSS THE ENTIRE WORLD AS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF MORALITY AND DEVOTION TO GOD?!?! Does the fact that God said “Just Kidding!” before Abraham plunged the knife into Isaac’s chest somehow make it ok? Not to me.

That was the first night I admitted to myself I was an atheist, and fully an Objectivist.

I woke up the next morning and had never felt so alive.

I’ll close this with two items, for those of you who would like more information on Objectivism.

The first is a link to the Introduction in The Objective Standard’s premier issue. It is, in my opinion, the absolute best succinct explanation of what Objectivism is and what I believe.

I’ll also leave you with the following passage from Ayn Rand’s novel, Anthem. It is, in my view, one of the most moving passages from any of Rand’s works. The journey of the protagonists in that novel is, in essence, not all together different from my journey described above. After a long struggle, Prometheus has finally rediscovered the meaning of the word I.

I am. I think. I will.

My hands . . . My spirit . . . My sky . . . My forest . . . This earth of mine. . . .

What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer.

I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a warrant for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.

It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect.

Many words have been granted me, and some are wise, and some are false, but only three are holy: “I will it!”

Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the loadstone which point the way. They point in but one direction. They point to me.

I know not if this earth on which I stand is the core of the universe or if it is but a speck of dust lost in eternity. I know not and I care not. For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.

….

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

But I am done with this creed of corruption.

I am done with the monster of “We,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

This god, this one word:

“I.”

**This was originally published on John & Ansley, mine and my wife’s blog. We’ve decided to make that more of a family blog with an emphasis on parenting. Sacred Ego will be where I discuss Objectivism and current events. I’m moving over all of my Objectivist posts from that site to here as part of that effort. Also, even though it was originally published on 9/26, I’ve updated the date of this post to be 11/15, so that it is the first post from John & Ansley to display, as it is, in my opinion, the best of the content from that site.**

From CNN:

During remarks to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce legal summit in Washington, (Jeb) Bush had tough words for the president in response to an audience question.

“I think President Obama has used the bully pulpit as a way to attack capitalism.”

Governor – you act like this is a surprise? Any who paid attention to his campaign should know Obama considers capitalism the enemy. The larger issue is that you, your brother and virtually the whole of the Republican establishment attack capitalism daily by your actions. Everyone knows that Democrats, and Obama in particular, are enemies of capitalism. Your side, however, has managed to con the entire nation into believing that Conservatives are its defenders. That’s the insidiousness of the Right – their Capitalist stance is, in reality, only a slower slope downward to true socialism. Despite your pro-capitalist lip service, the record shows that you are anything but. Two of the more egregious examples of this during the last administration was the passage of both Medicare Part D and TARP. Both passed with overwhelming Republican support, and both significantly undercut the free market. The country thinks we have a party interested in defending capitalism. If only that were the case. Sadly, America has no such party. A true defense of Capitalism starts with the idea that, just as there is a wall of separation between Church and State, there should be a similiar wall between State and Economics. Capitalism requires NO government involvement in the markets. Not limited, not “less than the Democrats” but NONE.

ARI has a great site that launched earlier this year called Principles of a Free Society. Here they detail exactly what is required for a free society to function, and they explain just why government intervention into the economy must be rejected, outright. The essence of a free society is individual rights. Under a free society, an individual must remain in total control of his life, liberty and property. The moment the government steps into the economic life of its country, they violate those rights. As they point out on the website (quoting Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness):

There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept “just a few controls” is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government’s unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement. As an example of this process, observe the present domestic policy of the United States.

Once you open the door to government intervention in one area of the economy, you open the door for every well connected pull-peddler in the nation to get the same intervention where they feel it’s necessary. Eventually you’ll have government setting interest rates for the entire economy, government insuring bank deposits, government confiscating 12.4% of every individual’s income under the guise of a retirement fund, government controlling the car companies, government telling companies how much they can pay their employees, government rationing of the healthcare system, government telling you how you must operate the computer networks you’ve spent a fortune building, government telling you which apps you must accept in your online App Store, which software you must include with your operating system, which ingredients you may put in the food that you sell, and where you can smoke on your own property. Eventually you have current day America.

The Pandora’s Box of socialism is opened at the first crack, not once the box has had its lid removed and all its walls demolished.

**This was originally published on John & Ansley, mine and my wife’s blog. We’ve decided to make that more of a family blog with an emphasis on parenting. Sacred Ego will be where I discuss Objectivism and current events. I’m moving over all of my Objectivist posts from that site to here as part of that effort**

I’ve been meaning to mention Diana Hsieh’s EXCELLENT new(ish) podcast, Rationally Selfish Radio for quite some time. I’ve listened to each of her episodes thus far, and could not be more delighted with what she has started. From The Philosophic Arguments for (and against) God, to relationship advice, career choices, and book reviews, Diana covers a broad spectrum of topics and does so with keen insight and knowledge. In addition, the podcast’s technical quality is superb and her delivery of the material is top notch. She has obviously spent a tremendous amount of time and effort in creating this podcast, and the results are magnificent. It is a valuable new addition of Objectivist material online. Thank you, Diana, for creating something that has added tremendous value to my life.

My favorite episode is her interview with Craig Biddle, of The Objectivist Standard discussing the morality of altruism and it’s pernicious influences on our government. The discussion of the topic between two very well spoken and intelligent Objectivist intellectuals was a breath of fresh air. I’m also looking forward to listening to her “Exploring Atlas Shrugged” series – it’s high time I reread the book again, and I plan on using these to deepen my understanding and appreciation of the novel.

Anyone interested in learning more about the ideas of Objectivism should subscribe. It’s well worth your time.

**This was originally published on John & Ansley, mine and my wife’s blog. We’ve decided to make that more of a family blog with an emphasis on parenting. Sacred Ego will be where I discuss Objectivism and current events. I’m moving over all of my Objectivist posts from that site to here as part of that effort**