Mediocre Thoughts on Ayn Rand

Far from being the proper egotist in the sense that Sam Harris describes as "not understanding pro-social emotions", Ms. Rand was the most elegantly self-centered primate whom I had the privilege of studying. 

Once on the Phil Donahue show, she denied the host's goad to worship at the altar of ecology (not having been impressed by natural spectacles) by saying that she was "in awe of skyscrapers... of what man was able to construct on his OWN." Contingent upon the point of reference, Rand was theologically consistent in a Protestant manner. Ironically, of course, for the woman who claims to have had no faith at all, and who uttered that religiosity was demonstrative of "a bad sign psychologically." In other words, to believe something that by definition man knows cannot be true and is unsubstantiated in any way. I have made it plain on several occasions how dishonest Gnostic Atheism is, let alone when it's accompanied by the boring statement "you are never called upon to prove a negative."

Nonetheless, the theological postulate resides. Rand was heavily anthropocentric in a cosmological sense. This quote from a latter television appearance illustrates her almost erotic love for men and mankind. Far from being devoid of the numinous, she expanded her veneration for mammals in the strictest metaphysical sense - homo sapiens sapiens are distinct from all other creations, potentially universally, and deserve such recognition and adulation lest we revert to paganism; much of which is all too salient in modern dietary habits. She seemed almost prescient, dare I say clairvoyant? For this, I claim that the cliche and hackneyed assessment of Objectivism as being fanatically arid and lugubrious is specious. This may even connect to her writings in the Romantic manifesto (which I admit I have yet to read) and Kira's aspirations to one day contribute to the alleged glory of the concrete jungle in We the Living. 

I have always been suspicious of the severely shallow criticisms of her work by public intellectuals, who undoubtedly benefit from assailing a deceased figure. My beloved Hitch repeated the same noise when confronted with this question: 
"I have always found it quaint that there is a part of the American electorate who thinks that people are not yet selfish enough" 
"It's too strenuous to recommend that people be even more self-centered" 
"Allan Greenspan is a walking contradiction" 
"Novels as transcendentally awful as Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead undermine my project... to redirect literature and philosophy as epicenters for moral discussion"

All of the above appear to me to be witticisms lacking substance. Not necessarily invalid or incoherent, but requiring development and example. Then again, I suppose Hitchens did make a career out of eloquence, charm, and the occasional intellectual posturing. Shifting from the questionably Marxist to certifiably Hegelian, I have also heard Slavoj Zizek claim that "Ayn Rand is so orthodox, that she is a parody of capitalism itself. Her ultra-conformism is so powerful, that she exposes the absurdity and evils of the system unconsciously. She is an embarrassment." I did take some liberties with the superstar communist's words, but the aforementioned quotation is an accurate reflection of his analysis. As for Jordan Peterson's view, we need not stumble around in the dark. Centrist as ever, Peterson proclaimed that he enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged on multiple occasions, but does not interpret Ayn as a great mind. Less political or economical in scrutiny, JBP stated that her characters are too one dimensional; a dearth of intra-character struggle between good and evil. Binary as ever in critique, which I presume is to be expected. 

Thanks,

No John Galt

What Are Ya Reading From Your Journal?!

God, Rationalism, & Cave-Diving

"The prophet descends from the mountain, and everyone in the town square wants to listen to what he has to say. He appears so small, with a massive ear. That was Nietzsche's metaphor for an intellectual. Unable to compete in any other realm, with the rational faculty expanded to astronomical proportions."

- Dr. Jordan Peterson

As is patently obvious, I have taken a break from writing over the last year or so. During my hiatus, I did that which is necessary for any human being to do; grow. Countless new acquaintances, experiences, both enjoyable and contemptible, have shaped and remodeled my prefrontal cortex. However, nothing has been more influential and devastating than the development of my psyche. Dogmatism, as I have come to understand, is not restricted to the religious.

I promise I am not pulling a C.S Lewis or an Alister McGrath on the atheists. Nor, in my view, have I become a toady acolyte of Jordan Peterson. Nonetheless, I cannot deny the relevance and potency of his eclectic and equivocal perspective on God. In short the lobster man submits that that which an individual reveres most in their value hierarchy functions practically as their god. Borrowed from the musings of Carl Gustav Jung, Peterson's position is esoteric at best. In effort to divorce myself as much as possible from intellectual bias, I evaluated his proposition on an empirical basis. Ironically, since my departure from the formal world of academia, there has been nothing to which I have been more fanatically devoted than the intellectual. The social, romantic, experiential, and impulsive realms of life suffered such a decline in attention that describing them as anorexic would have been generous. I recognized that there was an imbalance in my life, but persistently extolled the sentiment as evolution. Nothing is more devolved and unscientific than a life devoid of the heuristic. I will have to concede, with severe ambivalence, the ineptitude of hyper rationalism as a practical philosophy. Nonetheless, my proclivity for scrutiny cannot go ignored. If I were to give Jordan a pass on his radical oversimplification and casuistry, my brain would be as emaciated as my spontaneity. 

If we assume that Jordan's thesis is correct, and that in fact all human beings are religious in action and temperament, we are forced to acknowledge the very attributes that contributed to my stagnancy and anguish. I would summarize Peterson's analysis of human religiosity as follows: ritual, worship, and obstinacy. The very behaviors that I inevitably exhibited (per his assertions) fueled my tragedy and suffering. If indeed his pessimistic outlook on the human condition is sound, then he is forced by argumentative consistency to admit the horror that ensues as a result. I am not trying to reduce religion and faith to a thirteen year old atheist's naive conclusion, but I refuse to blindly join the boring bandwagon and alleged cultural resurrection of Christ. 

My advice to intellectuals who find themselves fettered by the creations of their own feeble minds is this - bring your harness. The phrase going down the rabbit hole is employed far too often for my liking, but it allows for an elegant analogy. Prior to my appreciation of pragmatic truths (which function as assumptions on which we all must operate; a necessary refuge for your ignorance) I descended the furry mammal's humble abode unsecured. Having an affinity for deconstructivism will eventually result in the complete disintegration of foundation and leave you unable to aggress (I hate the stupid connotations associated with progress, political and psychological); ascension impossible. 

If you made it this far, you are undoubtedly wondering what I mean by these truths and how I exact them. It occurred to me recently that if I am to escape the petrifying rigidity of the prescriptive and artificial, then I must defer to the descriptive and natural. I tread with caution whenever people begin to speak about what is natural. Normally it is a good indicator that some hysterical and unfounded bullshit is about to follow. However, I remarked that if I began to trust some impulses and pursue those inclinations to their exhaustion, the primal parts of me might shed some light on the purportedly lucid rationality to which intellects so stubbornly cling. So far, I have noticed minor improvements in exaction, decision making, and sentimentality; a welcomed change from the paralytic paranoia and debilitating doubt.

I make a brief, anecdotal, and cautious attempt at criticizing the perils and pitfalls of excessive rationalism. When my plight reached its apex, I began to believe that most of my thoughts and actions were consciously controlled and performed in practice - leading me to conclude intention. The internal struggle and frustration was insurmountable, and lead to toxic social consequences. Unintentionally, I began to believe that every one's behavior was always deliberate, calculated, and willed. I hope I do not have to point out what is calamitous there.

As a self-reminder and potential piece of advice, if you wish to scale the depths of our cavernous minds, pull the cord when the uncertainty epitomizes. 

Best,

A concerned citizen