The Faith Column

26 comments from readers

Apple
18 September 2007

Thank you for letting Mr. Onkar Ghate have a say on his Objectivist philosophy, but I have to comment on the irony of allowing this philosopher post his writings under the "faith column." What is "faith"? Is it not a means to ground beliefs in the mystical, supernatural realm? Mr. Ghate holds his philosophy not as beliefs but as knowledge of reality, and by means not of faith but of reason.

A characteristic of a claim to knowledge--as opposed to beliefs--is logical exclusivity. As a claim of knowledge, if 'A is A' is true, then 'A is non-A' is false--no exceptions. By contrast, the beliefs that God is real, that God is unreal, that God is everywhere, that God is nowhere, that he is Apollo, that she is Mother Earth, that I am God, that God is Consciousness, etc.--each one being held by a different person, or by the same person--are all compatible; that everyone is entitled to his belief or all of them,

So, indirectly, Mr. Ghate's writings in this column represent an intellectual rebuke to every prior columnist--a rebuke to the effect that what each had written was but expressions of mere feelings but ultimately devoid of rational thought and principles, that a profession of belief is a sham, that each piece of prior writings is a confession of a deep evasion of reality.

This is an irony, and I wonder how you will resolve it or evade it.

raemeg
18 September 2007

The column, though unfortunately named, does clearly describe itself as being for individuals to discuss their philosophies as well as religions. Whatever Mr. Gate's private opinions, his factual description of Objectivist tenets is appropriate in this forum.

Rational Dragon
19 September 2007

I love Dr. Ghate's phrase "the thinker, the creator, the producer" -- for these three types of people are my heroes.

Unlike the Mother Teresas of the world, thinkers, creators, and producers actually make life better for us all. Human health, happiness, and longevity have all been greatly improved due to thinkers, creators, and producers.

So... thank you Onkar Ghate, thank you Thomas Alva Edison, and thank you Bill Gates.

anand
19 September 2007

"Thinking, Creating, Producing" is all intermediate. Ultimate goal is seeking your own happiness. Mother Teresa sought her own happiness.

Far from being happy, Bill Gates is worried about beating Steve Jobs in bringing out the next gadget. In fact, Steve Jobs, from his interviews, is a happier person.

Happiness in the true sense is the ultimate value. Realise the futility of money and material in making one happy.

gnuneo
19 September 2007

very rational.

however, then i have to ask - for a social species like mankind, surely in this 'selfishness' promoted by rand, part of the source of happiness is ensuring that those around us are also happy, with good lives,and the possibility of achieving their potential.

yet randian libertarians are entirely against this notion, apparently beleiving in the exact opposite!

so, not very rational in fact.

JSnow
20 September 2007

anand: It would indeed be true that Mother Teresa sought her own happiness if happiness actually meant doing whatever you *feel* will make you happy. Your words are basically a paen of hedonism: if it feels good, do it.

Actual happiness, on the other hand, requires you to first identify what *is* good and then pursue it, which also demands that you ask such questions as "good for whom?"

Money won't *make* you happy, but the actions required to produce value (which is frequently represented by money in mature societies) are the pre-requisites of happiness. Note that Mother Teresa's help for the poor, the suffering, and lepers depended upon someone producing values that these poor (and herself) could consume. If everyone devoted their life to giving things away, where would the things come from in the first place?

gnuneo: Objectivists reject libertarianism (Ayn Rand was quite adamant about it). And it's impossible for any man to ensure that an unlimited number of people are happy and lead good lives. Each man can only create and be responsible for his own happiness.

However, we can ensure that everyone has the possibility of achieving his or her potential in a way: by leaving them free to act and bear the consequences for their own actions. Thus, they can make themselves happy if they choose to do so.

gnuneo
21 September 2007

but that is also dependant upon their circumstances!

this is why there has to be decent social benefits, and universal good education, because without these it is simply a farce to even begin to claim that everyone has the same opportunities.

health, and access to good nutritional food, are also vital community funded projects (this is called taxes, BTW, you may have heard of them), the upkeep of roads, street-lighting - all these are vital projects to be paid for through tax.

thus the community is built, which can raise children who beleive the community cares for them, and in return they will be good citizens themselves (with always some rebellion though, it is to be hoped) and not feel rejected because their parents are poor and therefore worthless in societies eyes.

we can all see the consequences of this feeling of social rejection in many of our young, although that has more reasons than just this, but it is a big part of it.

what you claim (it seems, perhaps i am wrong), is that a person should be "grateful for what they get", and should look with joy upon their slum dwelling, working full time on minimum wage and trying to raise kids, whilst the managers at the top are creaming off ridiculous fortunes from these employees hard labour - and they are not supposed to feel that matters are... somewhat unfair?

or do you beleive notions of unfairness are "irrational"?

pray tell how these people can feel "happy" about this circumstance if their children fall ill, but the hospital is now in the next county because all the local hospitals have been closed, the only ones left now private hospitals or hours long journey on the train or bus?

the life chances of those born into even a decent income and those on the bread-line are utterly incomparable, and i fail to see how a good person could sit back in a mansion and watch dirty, ill-fed peasants (industrial age: "workers") and feel happy with the situation.

but i suspect that you randians would try your hardest, after all, that would be the rational, 'objective' thing to do, right?

thanks for your previous reply, BTW, hope you can find the time to answer this as well. :)

anand
21 September 2007

It would be so short-sighted to say Mother Teresa produced nothing but was just the Robin Hood of the lepers. Mother Teresa is an inspiration for people to work harder. She instilled a sense of discipline in working. This is the essence of experiencing life - being disciplined in every act. That's what she gave to people who met her. People whom she helped, produced more with gratitude. The amount of creativity possible with such discipline and gratitude is immense. Working in Microsoft, to give more profits to Bill Gates hardly enthuses natural creativity. That's why these artificial devices of patents to "motivate" people to produce more.

One cannot measure productivity of a person from just the goods one produced directly. That would be short-sighted.

Apple
21 September 2007

Hm, methinks the faithful have returned. All is back to normal again. Next!

Jason
21 September 2007

Quite an interesting thesis. The concept of “self” in the above summary brings to mind the idea of self-fulfillment and self-actualization. This is similar to Aristotle’s ethics of excellence and achievement by actualizing one’s human potential. Such a concept, of course, includes the enjoyment of social pursuits from the most modest interaction to the deepest personal relationship.

The central focus on the furtherance of one’s life, in the above exposition, brings a naturalistic underpinning to the ethics. But read the article again. This isn’t a "mere existence" creed but a "full flourishing" ethos that is empowering as it is benevolent. Clearly, I’m imputing much too a few lines but no short essay could possibly assure the reader that the implications of the exposition are intended. Tantalizing but where does one find out more?

raemeg
22 September 2007

Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rand's magnum opus. The Fountainhead came earlier and has a different theme. Perhaps her most well-known non-fiction work would be The Virtue of Selfishness. If not that, then Philosophy: Who Needs It. All of these titles are available through Amazon, or your local bookstore can order them (if they aren't already on the shelves).

raemeg
22 September 2007

Oh, and of course you can always check out the Ayn Rand Institute's web site: aynrand.org

Percy Grainger
26 September 2007

I always found it very interesting that there were precious few children in Ayn Rand's novels. Howard Roark, John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia -- the whole lot of them spring from her pages fully grown, fully competent, and ready to wheel and deal on the free market. Who educated them? Who gave them breakfast in the morning when they were four years old, and not quite ready to invent perpetual motion machines, make fast dollars trading on the stock market, running copper mines or railroads, or whatever else they did?

What did they did they do to earn the diaper changing and laundry service they probably enjoyed as infants, toddlers, and children?

Maybe one day I will sit down to write an alternative version of Atlas Shrugged -- I'll call it "Dagny and John -- The Last Generation". In one of the chapters, John Galt actually gets Dagny pregnant after one of their quasi-rape sessions. Dagny is too cheap to get an abortion, so she delivers the child anyway. When she discovers that the infant doesn't have the cash to pay for his room and board, she decides her own happiness is better served by sitting front row center in Richard Halley's concert hall, and leaves the wailing baby on the street outside. After all, as shown in her story of the Twentieth Century Automobile Company, Ayn Rand just couldn't stand babies. Maybe thats why she liked the idea of abortion so much. We will then enter the Randian generation - where everyone will have a fantastic time making as much money and inventing as many gizmos as they can, until they grow old and die with no progeny. Within 75 years, the human race will be gone and Richard Halley's sheet music will blow through the empty cities.

bala
26 September 2007

Jason,

This is the sequence in which I read them - We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness and finally, Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology. I have found it extremely enlightening.

bala
26 September 2007

Percy,

Your picture of a mother abandoning her child requires a lot of stretching of the imagination and is a rather irrational way of presenting the issue.

Objectivism, as stated by Rand, also clearly specifies that happiness is rational and not a matter of choice. To use the situation that the mother "decides her own happiness is better served by sitting front row center in Richard Halley's concert hall, and leaves the wailing baby on the street outside" to support your "argument", you are starting from the presumption that happiness is just a matter of a few arbitrary choices.

A mother who takes the kind of decision that you have indicated will have to face another important idea that is a product of objectivism - You are free to make your choices, but not free to escape the consequences thereof.

revoyr
26 September 2007

I think the reason why Rand didn't include children in her fiction was becase they were not applicable or necceassary to Rand's themes or plots.

Your alternate version of Atlas Shrugged is funny.

However, of course babies require responsibilty and of course they cannot take care of themselves. This is why an Objectivist might claim that people should make a rational decision to have a kid, or get an abortion. They THINK about what they are getting into. If a couple or person decides to have a baby it is their responsibilty to raise it until it is 18 years old.

I don't think Ayn Rand was against babies, just against taking away a women's right to have an abortion if she didn't want to take care of it for 18 years, or did not have the resourses, and then the burden would not be placed on society in the form or welfare ( is it the dole in England?).

People will always want to raise babies and it should be a rational decision as with every other aspect of life.

mweb
26 September 2007

Percy,

How would Dagny decide all of a sudden that her happiness is best served by sitting around listening to Halley's music while her baby wailed outside? I think you're ignoring the idea of a rational selfishness. Choosing one's values requires that one think beyond the immediate moment. If I decide that I want a fit body--that it will make me happy--I can't sit in front of the TV drinking beer and eating cheeseburgers all night, and then claim that that's selfish. Far from feeling very happy about it, I would probably feel the disgusting emotion of guilt after such a session. Likewise, a woman like Dagny would hardly think that her desire to see a Halley performance over minding her baby would constitute a selfish choice. Selfishness is not determined by whim or the range of the moment.

And what if Ayn Rand's stories begin with characters in adulthood and proceed to tell their story from there? Name your favorite novel or movie, and I'll bet their stories start likewise. Are we to say that J.R.R. Tolkien or Peter Jackson hated kids, and that Aragorn can't be a real hero, because we don't see him wetting the bed and eating strained vegetables?

And more, Atlas Shrugged does offer a series of scenes which vividly portray Dagny, Francisco, Eddie Willers, and James Taggart as children. They weren't "earning their room and board" either. A child is brought into the world not by his own choice, but by the choice of his parents, for whatever selfish purpose of their own. It is therefore their responsibility to preserve his life and to give him whatever material and intellectual tools possible to best serve his life until he is fully rational, i.e. an adult, and can take care of himself.

Also, one woman in Atlas Shrugged explains why she's chosen to bring her children up in Galt's Gulch. It's a good description of what Ayn Rand thought of children, and that she cares about them as human beings even more than most people today, who don't hesitate to send their kids into educational institutions which work systematically to destroy immature minds before they've ever had a chance.

"Dagny and John--The Last Generation" is weak and unfunny, man.

mweb
26 September 2007

Also, in the Twentieth Century Motor Company story, it isn't babies as such that she objected to (who would?), but babies had by people who expected other people to support them--actually, in this case, people who had babies specifically to get more handouts from their fellow neighbors.

And her ideas on abortion are not founded on "hatred of babies", but on a woman's right to her own life, and of the right of an actual life over the "rights" of a potential.

Give up these preposterous and out-of-context assertions and name-calling. "Baby-hater"? Give me a break.

bradw2k
26 September 2007

Echoing mweb: Atlas Shrugged describes several of the main characters as children near the beginning of the book, it is hard to miss. Rand's writings in general are not disinterested in childhood, I find that she had very strong opinions about the nature of children, of parenting, and of proper education. Some of her extemporaneous answers about such can be found in the highly recommended _Ayn Rand Answers_.

Roger
26 September 2007

Thanks mweb: good retort concerning "...it isn't babies as such that she objected to...but babies had by people who expected other people to support them--actually, in this case, people who had babies specifically to get more handouts from their fellow neighbors..."

I, living in "socialist" Europe, have personal knowledge of at least one such case, of a woman living in a house I oversee for my family, who actually told me that she had child number 2 (number 1 was an "accident") so that she would not have to reenter the jobmarket in the foreseeable future.

On most afternoons she could be seen enjoying a beer or two (or three) at one of the local pubs, presumably paid for by the taxmoney extorted from me and my family in the name of "solidarity", and actually meant to give her children a "better start" in life. Myself, busy growing my manufacturing business, rarely had time for even one beer until late at night, when I had become too tired for it.

Her children?: One became a juvenile delinquent who meanwhile, no longer juvenile, is serving a serious jailterm. The other has so far managed to hold a plethora of short-term, unskilled, jobs beneath subsistence level. Both thus continue, effectively, subsidized by our money via the state's coercion.

Their mom, meanwhile, though working again, also receives a variety of subsidies funded by taxpayers.

So much for those who claim that the material circumstances of one's life determine one's level of achievement. While this lady and her offspring enjoyed a comparatively carefree life of benign poverty during twenty years, culminating in further benign poverty, yours truly endured many a sleepless night during many a month agonizing about how to meet the coming payroll, then further sleepless nights ruminating about how to pay the taxes on his profits, without crippling his business. All, in the name of "solidarity" and the alleged "human dignity" of the alleged "disadvantaged".

To this day, nobody has considered to address the issue of MY human dignity as de facto slave of these people and those politicians buying the next election from them by means of my future income!

Fonz21
26 September 2007

Roger,

Well written retort to the altruistic belief system. I am amazed at the lengths people will go to protect the failed ideals of socialism. They use failed government extortion policies as the premise for their proof. I have yet to see one of these programs bring people from the depths of poverty to major contributor to society as a producer. The successes are exceptions not the rule and they did it by SELF motivation not government handout. The idea that extorting monies from others to give to the quote "underprivleged" with no expectation of growth or responsibility to repay the debt for this undeserved windfall is utter folly. It breeds a belief that it is virtuous to give without expectation of return and that those who work hard should expect nothing but hatred and disdain from those who demand their hard earned monies. Look at the politcal situation in the world today the employers are evil, the producers are evil. Those who steal, cheat and lie are the heroes(politicians) who promise everyone the "Right to health care, money without working, free child care, predetermined living wages". I ask those of you who are such belelievers in the Altruistic socialist mindset, what will you do when you steal everything from the producers of the world and they can no longer support your utopian collective? Will you hang us? Jail us? Make us the scapegoat for your failed policies and illogical beliefs? There is a point of diminishing returns and throughout Europe they have already reached it. They have taxed the producers to the point of stagnation of economies. We here in the U.S. are well on our way. Please tell me why people hold the the thiefs in so high an esteem when they produce nothing and steal from your neighbors to provide you with unearned "free" services. I know the answer is that without a purpose for life and a goal for reaching it, people will believe anything. Critical thought has been lost in the West and I'm not sure when that happened but it has gotten much worse in the past 30 years. The reaction to anyone who questions the ideals of altruism with rational thought is not met with curiousity but with hate and disdain. Closed minds use words of hate and ridicule and refuse to debate on the facts because they can not support the ideals of Altruism on it's face.

HBinswanger
26 September 2007

I'm pleased to see such first-rate thinking in the comments of the others here. Maybe it would help those less familiar with Objectivism to quote a brief section from Atlas Shrugged wherein the hero is speaking against altruism:

"I, who do not accept the unearned, neither in values nor in guilt, am here to ask the questions you evaded. Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

"The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.

"Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others -- it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others -- it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch -- it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself -- it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice -- it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood others."

Roger
26 September 2007

Fonz21 and MBinswanger: Thanks for your replies/comments. (For the longest 20 years, I thought myself alone with AR's ideas. When I mentioned them to people who knew or knew of her philosophy, I was mostly met with a response which, when benign, might be described as somewhat akin to "... Geez, another Don Quixote tilting at windmills..." when adversarial, clearly stated that I was to be considered a particular nasty sort of "immoral bastard", who, as a successfull businessman most likely got there by cheating his customers or by government subsidies. --I never cheated anybody. I never took a subsidy, nor do I intend to. I'd sooner close my business ! Nor have I ever claimed a single "charitable deduction" on my tax-returns. What money I donate to causes I care about I consider nobody's business but my own ! -- Such replies would typically be met by disbelief or even the outright accusation of lying! -- People not aware of/ familiar with Objectivist thinking, on the other hand, simply considered my stance cruel or despicable, and minced no words thus informing me.)

Be that as it may, and not to bore you with personal stories, I'm writing now to correct /add to my previous input.

I wrote, "So much for those who claim that the material circumstances of one's life determine one's level of achievement..."

I am now writing to claim that in this context, in a perverse way, this might even be considered true. The lady in question, had she not been subsidized so generously by the "State", might have found it prudent not to have had a second child, but instead have devoted more time earning a respectable living by moving ahead, and maybe up, from some menial initial employment, along the way also setting a more appropriate example for her child !

Here too, I have personal knowledge of just such a case, albeit in the USA of some 25 years ago !

So, to conclude, personal experience indicates that material starting conditions can work both ways. The result is, however, dependent upon individual motivation and effort, or their absence.

In any event, no government program is likely ever to be endowed with the wisdom (nor the means) to discern the difference, so that even from a purely pragmatic point of view, the notion of taking from the one to give to another becomes a (very expensive) exercise in shuffling statistics. The only sure beneficiaries are therefore the increasingly huge number of politicians and bureaucrats who count it as their singular "achievement" to have "created a better world", which of course they control, with the obvious expectation of a handsome payscale for their "efforts".

Living in Europe as long as I do, I can vouch for the likelihood that the vagrant's tale on the "Comet" concerning "Starnesville" becomes literal truth !

Thus it was, is, and will be moral grounds upon which to fight this issue of rampant altruism, worldwide. What better indicator of the truth of Objectivist ethics than that there is no conflict with pragmatic considerations !

aaron
06 October 2007

I see a conflict in the objectivist acceptance of abortion and it's promotion of one's right to his own life and one's responsibilty to the consesequences of his actions. This is observation is based on reason and not at all in faith.

Science has shown us that the human gene sequence is formed at the moment of conception, a sequence that has never exsisted and will never exsist again (barring clones). The beginings of consciuosness obvioiusly come later but this event, according to science, is the start of a new, unique, individual, human life.

If abortion is not murder, how do we draw a line as to what stage of developement the right to abort ends at? Why does that right end when the child takes its first breath of air (or wherever else the line could be drawn)?

Objectivisim also speaks of self-determinism and ones resposibility for the consequences of his actions. Why does this not apply to the choice to have unprotected sex?

ReverendOverlord
24 December 2007

Because the fetus doesn't care whether it lives or dies. The parent does. The fetus has no human spirit. The parent does. If this fetus is eventually born into the world, the parents now has the duty to care for it for 18 years. That amounts to many thousands of dollars (hundreds of thousands for most kids), hours and hours of work, and ultimately a complete life change. What if you are 19 years old (like myself) and you are foolish enough to have unprotected sex and get your girlsfriend pregnant? Do I quit school, so I can get a full time job? Do I put my law degree on hold so I am forced to live on government handouts? Do I drain YOUR pockets and make everyone suffer because of the "consequence" of my action, a consequence that can be avoided by mearly killing a group of indistinguishable cells, that will SOMEDAY became a human with rights. Is the child I would have had, the child that would have derailed my life, more important than the child I will have some other day? The child that I would not have if I had had this earlier one? Is it truly moral too give a meak life to this one taking away a glorious life from another?

aaron
06 February 2008

You take resposibilty for your action. You can still accomplish any goal provided you have the will and ability. Plenty of people (myself included) have unplanned children at a young age and still acheive their goals. In fact, facing such challanges builds strength of character that will help you in alll areas of life. Come on, be a man, face life's challanges, don't run from them.

There are also many families looking to adopt.

Your argument that a fetus doesn't care is invalid. Does a newborn care? If so, does it care 15 minutes before birth?