[quote]ephrem wrote:
Do you have an opinion on her atheism?[/quote]
Yes, and it will take quite some time to develop, so bear with me.
I remember this post from a few years ago and paste it in the interest of time. I am going away for the weekend and will we limited on my ability to start from scratch.
"At the beginning of this thread, HH throws out the premise of Atlas Shrugged and its parallels to current events. Fair enough. The floor is open. Everyone is welcome. I opened with the following:
“I find it hard to believe anyone could have more respect for Ayn and her intellect than myself. Having said that, I believe she put too much faith in mans ability to act in his rational self interest. The philosophy was so powerful because it was the antithesis of the emerging green meme (worldview) with its pluralistic, elitist, yet big brother tendency, and it was a great evolution from the amber or mythic meme with its literal interpretation of mythic structures and its ethnocentric tendencies. Plus, it directly challenged the primary weapon of both camps, which was the evoking of altruism (self sacrifice) for the “greater good.”
I believe that Ayn simply underestimated, or simply was not aware of the internal stages of development and all the cultural inputs. And again, she overestimated the ability of people to instantly throw off the effects of these inputs and immediately begin to adopt a philosophy of rational self interest.”
In short, I simply acknowledged my respect for her intellect and proceeded to give my critique of her philosophy, both good and bad. I followed it up with the following:
“I would suggest that anyone able to fully appreciate Rand might start to expose themselves to Ken Wilber. Not that they share the same philosophy, but I think that Ken does an excellent job of giving those who appreciate the basics of Ayn’s philosophy a means to transcend yet include her teachings. More importantly, he gives one a way to orient such a philosophy, assign it an “address” and “altitude” so that you can establish an orientation with others of different viewpoints and be able to have effective communication with them.”
I assumed my stance was clear enough, but I sense the need to further clarify. I am a great admirer of Ayn’s intellect, yet I do not use her philosophy as the compass by which to navigate. For those that are not familiar with Ken Wilber’s work, he is a modern (living) philosopher who I think has done an exceptional job codifying the various philosophies and worldviews that have formed throughout our history, as well as the evolution of religious and spiritual thought. One of the basic observations he has written of is the common progression of “worldviews” that all cultures seem to progress through regardless of the location, geography, and endless other factors. These worldviews in order are as follows; Magic, Mythic, Rational, Pluralistic/Relativistic, Integral/Holistic. All cultures and individuals seem to follow this route, at least until they stagnate at one particular level. Magic would correlate to aboriginal like cultures or early childhood (think Santa and the tooth fairy or monsters in the closet). Mythic would correlate to absolutist, fundamental, literal religious based worldview (think radical Islam or hardcore creationist Christianity). Rational is relatively new, coming about in the last three hundred years or so. Correlates would be the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the advent of democracy, etc. I believe this worldview is presented in its most pure, absolute (and unattainable) form in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
Next in line is Pluralistic/Relativistic worldview that most notably took form in the hippie movement of the sixties and has continued on in the Green movement and the far left social movement. All points of view are valid. Everyone gets a trophy. Life is one endless meeting where everyone is heard and nothing constructive gets done.
The integral/holistic worldview is far more rare. This is where one begins to take a step back and see the big picture. Different worldviews are not judged right or wrong specifically, but in a contextual framework.
Think of each stage as a step on a ladder. Each rung is important in that you have to transcend one to get to the next. With each new step you not only transcend but include (hopefully the best of) all previous steps.
If anyone is still reading (and I understand if you are not) my respect for Ayn is that she encapsulated the rational worldview in its purest and most idealistic form. In doing so, I believe she helped hundreds of thousands to make the transition from mythic to rational in their worldviews. Rational being an essential rung on the ladder, she in her own way helped those that have since moved up and on.
I think it necessary to add that, at least in my opinion, that rational is the most developed and solidified worldview to date. As previously stated, I believe it set the tone in which democracy was attainable, slavery was ended, universal suffrage became a reality, and much of world hunger and disease were eradicated. Pluralistic/relativistic is yet to be fully formed, and is still cycling between extremes of socialism and elitism.
With all of this in mind, I therefore find Ayn Rand relevant. I also understand why someone still at the Mythic worldview would not. They have not passed that rung of the ladder so they don’t get it. Someone at the pluralistic/relativistic stage is in the unique position in that this worldview tends to try to equalize all worldviews and in the process they deny any hierarchy or value structure. Those who are at the integral/holistic stage acknowledge her contribution and validity in the overall picture. They apply the good and leave the bad.
With all of this said, maybe the following quote becomes clearer in context:
“We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and all giants have feet of clay.
Rand was imperfect, but she better classified and clarified the emergent objective/rationalist point of view better than anyone before her. Yes, she came off as an insufferable bitch. However, she still is, in my opinion one of the top 10 intellects of all time.”
I then clarified a question with, "A ladder is a poor metaphor for actual application, yet it makes for a good visual.
A better visual may be a “Russian Doll”. Worldviews are nested hierarchies (a whole, within a whole, within a whole). Each one stands on its own, whole unto itself, yet containing the previous whole and being a part of the proceeding whole.
The place where the Russian Doll analogy fails is that within nested hierarchies, with every greater height (or depth) comes less span (width). The thing to remember is that at each emergent level, you both transcend the previous level while still including it in the greater whole."
One point I realize that I should have clarified above is that just because a person has ascended to or achieved a certain level of thought or worldview does not men they never regress. Stressers of all types, both internal and external, can cause one to regress to a previous worldview.
The is especially true if the highest worldview has not been completely integrated. Remember, it is transcend and include.
One way to make this point is to evoke the phrase, “There are no atheist in a foxhole.” That is one of the reasons I called Ayn’s vision unobtainable. Remember in the closing chapters of Alas Shrugged where Dr. Ferris has John Galt hooked up to the Ferris Persuader? Ferris puts Galt through agonizing hell, past all limits of human endurance.
He actually pushes the machine to the point it malfunctions. In the grip of panic at his own realization of the true level of his debauchery Ferris is trying to fix the machine. In a weak but steady voice, Galt turns to Ferris and calmly tells him the source of the problem. In that moment Ferris is so overcome by the realization of how far removed he is to this example of man at his true potential that he has a total break with reality and goes completly insane.
It makes for a wonderful and inspiring scene, but it could never happen in real life. Even Christ himself had one brief moment of doubt (“Father, why have You forsaken me?”) In that moment of mental, physical and spiritual stress, even Galt would have regressed to a lower worldview.
(However, even as I write this I am reminded of the monks who doused themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire in protest of the Vietnam war.)
Anyway, I hope you get my point.
Hopefully the above sets up the basis from which I can address atheism, etc.
Allow me to gather my thoughts, get a meal and make another run at it.
