Alvin Toffler 1964 Playboy Interview II

 
 

1964 Toffler Playboy Interview with Ayn Rand
*******************************************
Part II

 
 

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand www.playboy.com /articles/playboy-interview-ayn-rand
This interview originally ran in our March 1964 issue.

The interview between Alvin Toffler and Ayn Rand continues with the second segment
of their commentary where they discuss emotion, morality, love and even god.

(Alvin Toffler)   Couldn’t the attempt to rule whim out of life, to act in a totally rational fashion, be viewed as conducive to a juiceless, joyless kind of existence?


(Lone Cypress Workshop)   Does one equate whim and mindless hedonism to the joy of existence? I find that deeply troubling and disturbing. What is it that excites you? The joy of achievement or the ecstasy of undeserved recognition? Is existence subservient to emotion, or to reason? I fail to see what is important to those that ask such a question.


(Ayn Rand)   I truly must say that I don’t know what you are talking about. Let’s define our terms. Reason is man’s tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality.

To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. A whim is an emotion whose cause you neither know nor care to discover. Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that a man acts like a zombie, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that a man acts in a state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colorful? I think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood. To act against the facts of reality can result only in destruction.


(LCW)   While emotions may not be tools of cognition, they may well be something that can be helpful in the consideration of concepts and events. I know that acting on a whim can be detrimental, but it can be an affirmation as well. Rand does not believe in whim and she seems to say here that emotion is just as bad, but she has said that emotion can be important, it is telling us something, but it must be subservient to reason, with which I agree wholeheartedly. Is is possible that whim can also hold some value? She also says that she does not think that man has instinct, but it has been proven, or this seems so, that animals survival instincts come from genetic markers that reinforce those successful actions taken by the ancestors of those animals.

Man is an animal, so would that not infer that man also has some degree of instincts as well? I fully agree that reason needs to ‘drive the bus’ but as long as emotion is not in control completely, can they not be compatible and complimentary? I think Rand might have some difficulties with my perspective on this.

I agree with her on both her comments on emotions and on whim, and yet I still question if she is not a bit too unyielding in her positions. There does seem to be some conflict there, but ultimately it remains a valid train of thought.


(AT)   Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one’s life entirely?


(Ayn Rand)   Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions – provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows – or makes it a point to discover – the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions, for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies; they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.


(LCW)   Consistent. Comprehensive. More than a little reasonable. Her whole perspective makes perfect sense. Is there anyone that actually disagrees with her positions? Can they specifically demonstrate where she is wrong, even taking into account that it cannot be proven one way or the other? This is what she means when she speaks of ‘rational’. Rational self-interest is cohesive in much the same way. Not a single complex observation but a whole host of comments, observations, experiences, insights, investigation and conclusions that bring an overwhelming argument for her position. No one need agree completely or even to some small degree, but if one does disagree, there is an imperative to bring evidence and reason to the table to refute and argue the concepts and conclusions she reaches.


(AT)   According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?


(Ayn Rand)   If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.


(LCW)   Can’t both coexist simultaneously? Are they not compatible and symbiotic to one another? I think this is similar to emotion and reason. They are both acknowledged as integral to the health of the whole, and yet there can only be a single primary. Rand believes that productive work, including that purpose that she references is the primary, as reason is in the other example. You can disagree but at your own risk. You may even be right, but productive work will always create a more stable place from which to distribute benefits to the family and the community. Helping others is important, but without resources, both financially and psychologically, as well as emotionally, the ability to create benefit is at a disadvantage.

There is much room here for discussion and debate, but I believe that what she says is a more prudent and an inevitably successful direction. Could I be wrong? Without a doubt. Do we have the right to disagree without repercussions? I would hope so. Is there a need for vilification and condemnation, ridicule and personal attacks? There is never a need for these things. And yet, this is what happens with the opposition to objectivism and Ayn Rand, that has no qualms about turning it into a food fight, to put it mildly. Where does the civility and the respect go? I just don’t understand.


(AT)   Do you believe that women as well as men should organize their lives around work – and if so, what kind of work?


(Ayn Rand)   Of course. I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The basic principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do, and I would not attempt it in regard to women. There is no particular work, which is specifically feminine. Women can choose their work according to their own purpose and premises in the same manner as men do.


(LCW)   Are these the words of someone that does not treat the sexes equally? She thinks of the poor in the same context. This is a person that wants everyone, not just the wealthy or the successful, to enjoy life in whatever fashion is available to them. They may have to ‘settle’ for something less than others, but is it realistic to think that this will not always be the case?


(AT)   In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?


(Ayn Rand)   Not immoral—I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper—if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.


(LCW)   What an intellectual, reasonable and philosophical way to look at being a mother, or a parent for that matter. It has been commented by many over the years that parenting is the only career where no experience or expertise is required. Perhaps we should rethink that a bit. Would it not be in all of our interests to have parents that are more capable and competent than what we see today? Please do not miss the point here. We have children that are being abused and ignored and for all intents abandoned, all within the sphere of the ‘family’.

Would not society benefit from a more compassionate, respectful, and caring community of parents? Not paid for by the government or your neighbors, but by the actions and intent of the parents themselves. We need parents that are better educated both intellectually and philosophically. Is this the fault of objectivism that this even happens, or is it something more basic and dark, like a failure of our species in being able to rear its own young? Let’s face it, it starts with a hundred million abortions each and every year on this planet. We don't revere life, and we don't respect the individual. Think about it. A hundred million. Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot have not accomplished anything whatsoever that even compares with the pain and suffering, the death and destruction that is represented by such a number.


(AT)   Where, would you say, should romantic love fit into the life of a rational person whose single driving passion is work?


(Ayn Rand)   It is his greatest reward. The only man capable of experiencing a profound romantic love is the man driven by passion for his work—because love is an expression of self-esteem, of the deepest values in a man’s or a woman’s character. One falls in love with the person who shares these values. If a man has no clearly defined values, and no moral character, he is not able to appreciate another person. In this respect, I would like to quote from The Fountainhead, in which the hero utters a line that has often been quoted by readers: “To say ‘I love you’ one must know first how to say the ‘I’.”


(LCW)   I can’t agree more with what Ayn Rand says here about what constitutes love. It is about respect for values, and one cannot love someone whom they do not admire for their own value system. Sexual compatibility contributes no value. It has nothing to do with values. Character, morals, and ethics derive directly from these values. Love is not sex, and has been disturbing equated together forever, misguidedly.

If one cannot love themselves, they cannot ever hope to love someone else. There has to be a reason, and a well-defined reason. That is not to say that sex should be somehow diminished, but please do not try to equate the two. The act of sex is one of shared enjoyment, while love is something much deeper and of more consequence. Would you give your life for someone you loved? I would think so. How about for a random date that released your sexual tensions? There is a distinctive difference. Maybe not for all, but for some, and I hope most.


(AT)   You hold that one’s own happiness is the highest end, and that self-sacrifice is immoral. Does this apply to love as well as work?


(Ayn Rand)   To love more than to anything else. When you are in love, it means that the person you love is of great personal, selfish importance to you and to your life. If you were selfless, it would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.


(LCW)   She continues to nail it. Consistent and comprehensive, like many of her positions. We need to think of this concept of selflessness in more depth and detail. According to Auguste Comte, the concept of altruism is built upon the idea of selflessness, which is integral in the culmination of what altruism is all about, the complete denial of self, in any respect whatsoever, to the benefit of others, nameless and unimportant. It is the act itself which holds the only value. Not the altruist and not the recipient, they are secondary. When you lose yourself in the act, he seems to insist that you become a better human being, but for all intents and purpose, you cease to exist. He doesn’t say that, but it seems obvious.


(AT)   You have denounced the puritan notion that physical love is ugly or evil; yet you have written that;

“Indiscriminate desire and unselective indulgence are possible only to those who regard sex and themselves as evil.” Would you say that discriminate and selective indulgence in sex is moral?


(Ayn Rand)   I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.


(LCW)   She continues her narrative on love and sex with even more consistency. It all relates to what was said previously and continues to paint a complete picture of the individual and the reasons for that love that she speaks of.


(AT)   Does this mean, in your view, that sex should involve only married partners?


(Ayn Rand)   Not necessarily. What sex should involve is a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question, which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons' lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper.

I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.


(LCW)   Marriage is more a religious and social construct than anything else. Social imperatives do seem to consider it a positive aspect for the stability and protection of the social community itself, and that is not an unreasonable assumption, but it is not necessary for the community to exist and to flourish. A more comprehensive philosophical and moral base would replace the need for marriage, unless desired by the individuals involved. Let’s face it, relationships are woefully unsuccessful. Most individuals are involved in ten or twenty relationships prior to marriage, and all of them, except for one (the marriage), fail. Most marriages fail as well, and it not out of the question for people to marry five times or more in their lifetimes. This tells us that perhaps 2 or 3% of relationships actually last, so the dissolution of marriage is really not going to create some unresolvable void in our communities. Maybe we need some alternatives to marriage, but then again, it looks like many are already experimenting with ‘arrangements’ that would not have been possible only decades ago. I think the values and the personal philosophies of the individuals involved will be of more significance moving forward, or should be. If we do not evolve and develop into a more reasonable, competent, and philosophical individual it will be of no consequence in any case.


(AT)   As one who champions the cause of enlightened self-interest, how do you feel about dedicating one’s life to hedonistic self-gratification?


(Ayn Rand)   I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine, which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means.

One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.


(LCW)   A relevant, consistent and legitimate position. It seems a bit extreme, but it is not. It is not temptation she is talking about but the fundamental morality of the individual. Love is predominantly derived through the mind, and hedonism is almost pure emotionalism. There is a place for both, but even an attempt at equating them is irrational.


(AT)   You have said that the kind of man who spends his time running after women is a man who “despises himself.” Would you elaborate?


(Ayn Rand)   This type of man is reversing cause and effect in regard to sex. Sex is an expression of a man’s self-esteem, of his own self-value. But the man who does not value himself tries to reverse this process. He tries to derive his self-esteem from his sexual conquests, which cannot be done. He cannot acquire his own value from the number of women who regard him as valuable. Yet that is the hopeless thing, which he attempts.


(LCW)   Is this not obvious? Sex is distinct from love, although there can certainly be overlap, and as a secondary impulse or even compulsion can be acceptable, but as a means of identifying and defining self-esteem and self-value is self-destructive and counter-productive. We choose our own values, and sex and hedonism create little value or substance within our existence, so is virtually irrelevant.


(AT)   You attack the idea that sex is “impervious to reason.” But isn’t sex a nonrational biological instinct?


(Ayn Rand)   No. To begin with, man does not possess any instincts. Physically, sex is merely a capacity. But how a man will exercise this capacity and whom he will find attractive depends on his standard of value. It depends on his premises, which he may hold consciously or subconsciously, and which determine his choices. It is in this manner that his philosophy directs his sex life.


(LCW)   I disagree on the subject of instinct, but that does not prevent us from discussing what he does with either instinct or emotion. If man is to live by reason, primarily, then the direct derivatives of morality and thought are ethics, philosophy and integrity. These are things that are chosen, not done by rote or directives. Man chooses his standard of value, the animal does not, but we always must recognize and accept that man was and remains an animal, no matter the evolution of what he thinks, and how he acts. If man is to actually be superior to the animal, in any aspect, then he must be superior in his thoughts, his decisions and his conclusions. That is the distinction.


(AT)   Isn’t the individual equipped with powerful, nonrational biological drives?


(Ayn Rand)   He is not. A man is equipped with a certain kind of physical mechanism and certain needs, but without any knowledge of how to fulfill them. For instance, man needs food. He experiences hunger. But, unless he learns first to identify this hunger, then to know that he needs food and how to obtain it, he will starve. The need, the hunger, will not tell him how to satisfy it.

Man is born with certain physical and psychological needs, but he can neither discover them nor satisfy them without the use of his mind. Man has to discover what is right or wrong for him as a rational being. His so-called urges will not tell him what to do.


(LCW)   Once again, I am skeptical. Rand is a firm believer in absolutes, and has said so on many occasions. As a young man, I accepted both absolutes and objective perception as concepts approaching an absolute. Life experience has shown me that this is most likely not as true as she would have claimed, and much less than what I once believed. That is what evolution is about, it is what philosophy is about, it is even what science is about. New data, new considerations, new contemplations, new conclusions. It is not a matter of hypocrisy or indecision, but more of growth and revelation as we assimilate and comprehend new information.

We remain an animal, and an animal is driven by biology more than by reason. We (mankind), supposedly, have developed reason to a level that removes much of that biological imperative and have replaced it with intellectual and philosophical concepts and alternatives.

But biological motivations, such as hunger and thirst, do exist, in man as well as animal. The animal may make more mistakes than the human as to how he deals with this challenge, but the only reason man does not normally poison himself is that he has that innate ability to think and make decisions that are hopefully beneficial. The animal learns and passes this information to their offspring through instinct. Man does as well, but perhaps more so in the imperative to think first, and act afterward.

Ayn Rand has said that life is black and white, and in a perfect world, perhaps so, and I acknowledge that she is striving to define a perfect existence, and I wholeheartedly support her efforts, but reality is a million shades of gray. Every mistake is a mixture of the black and white of existence. Since no one person, at least at this point, is perfect, then nothing is really ever an absolute of black or white. It would be nice perhaps, but it is neither rational nor relevant. Maybe more rational, but not without exception.


(AT)   In Atlas Shrugged you wrote, “There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” Isn’t this a rather black-and-white set of values?


(Ayn Rand)   It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this.


(AT)   What is meant by the expression “black and white”? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.


(LCW)   She does tend towards the irrational at times, no matter how hard she wants to use reason and objectivity. I passionately agree that an individual needs to determine, define and comprehend as clearly as possible what is meant by black and white, but we have already spoken of man being a subjective being, and that each and every individual has to make their own decisions, completely disassociated from other individuals, including Ayn Rand. She is ‘not’ the determining factor, but our life experience, comprised of events, education, intelligence, philosophy, and culture are all a part of this. Our interpretation is unique and variably different from every other human being, possibly being more insightful and comprehensive than many, but at other times, we can misinterpret, and act irrational and confused as to what comprises reality, and how our own views compare.

I think that reflects my previous comment that Rand has some issues with absolutes and that black and white assumptions about not what might be the best scenario, but what is possible, practical or achievable. What is desirable, and even objectively the ‘right’ thing to do is often impossible for us to do based on abilities and comprehension, so it will not, can not be done, according to some fantasy as to an irrefutable definition of black or white. We may not even agree with the final conclusions, but Rand, using absolutes, is not able to accept those things that are not deemed perfection. For the most part, perfection is an unattainable goal.

She speaks of justification, but how does one justify human nature? It is what it is. We can try as hard as we wish, but it may, and usually does, fall short of the optimum. Absolutes, in my experience, verge on the irrational and the impossible. Perfection is rarely spoken of, except in some relation to god, and since Rand does not believe in god (for the most part, neither do I) there seems to be some contradiction here. Rand says if you see a contradiction, one should check their premises, that one of them is wrong, and needs to be corrected. What if it is not ‘humanly’ possible to do so? Just some food for thought.


(AT)   Then you believe in absolutes?


(Ayn Rand)   I do.


(AT)   Can’t Objectivism, then, be called a dogma?


(Ayn Rand)   No. A dogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is, without rational justification or against rational evidence. A dogma is a matter of blind faith. Objectivism is the exact opposite. Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason.


(LCW)   I completely agree. Dogma is something else. Not just on faith alone, but on the determinations of someone not relevant to ‘you’, the self. It is a mindless acceptance of something that is misunderstood, or a complete enigma. Pretty much irrational, and objectivism is at least trying to minimize that irrationality.

While it is true that we should resist the acceptance of any idea or conviction unless it can be demonstrated that it approaches truth, that would invariably be through the use of reason. But human reason is not perfect and it is not infallible, so we must acknowledge that reality, and incorporate that fact into our deliberations, almost always ending up with something more beneficial than other conclusions, but not perfect either. I find that so much more palatable than perfection. It can be reminiscent of dogma, though, and should be resisted by our abilities to do so.


(AT)   If widely accepted, couldn’t Objectivism harden into a dogma?


(LCW)   The possibility may well exist, especially since history shows this to be the case in relation to almost any religion, ideology, philosophy or discipline that has ever existed. The human factor is always a component of any set of beliefs, and should be expected to make its presence known, which often results in some negative consequences. We have to learn from our mistakes, and the mistakes of others. That is how we learn and grow. It is a necessary component of evolution.


(Ayn Rand)   No. I have found that Objectivism is its own protection against people who might attempt to use it as a dogma. Since Objectivism requires the use of one’s mind, those who attempt to take broad principles and apply them unthinkingly and indiscriminately to the concretes of their own existence find that it cannot be done. They are then compelled either to reject Objectivism or to apply it. When I say apply, I mean that they have to use their own mind, their own thinking, in order to know how to apply Objectivist principles to the specific problems of their own lives.


(LCW)   I find this to be true in essence and in practice, but that implies that the individual is at least well-versed in objectivism to begin with, and capable of making the rational choices necessary to implement the philosophy in their everyday life. Not an easy task. Those that cannot are not real objectivists, and their failures are not the failures of the ideology but more the failures of the individual. There is a distinction between the two, and it is a significant one.

Ayn Rand can be passionate and forceful in her delivery and her perspective, and yet, as she says here, it ‘means that they have to use their own mind, their own thinking, in order to know how to apply objectivist principles to the specific problems of their own lives’. Does this not infer that she is completely impotent to help them with their deliberations? I would think this confirms what I have said, that an individual can only do the best according to their abilities and experience which precludes, in most instances, an identical response or conclusion in comparison to Rand herself.

She believes in individualism, which means it is out of her control except for the specifics that the individual takes away from her own positions. It also means that what she would do is irrelevant in relation to this other individual. Hence, the existence of not black and white, but a million shades of grey exist, making it the primary color of human existence, of objectivist existence. I don’t mean to be argumentative, it just that this seems not only reasonable but logical and practical as well.


(AT)   You have said you are opposed to faith. Do you believe in God?


(Ayn Rand)   Certainly not.


(AT)   You’ve been quoted as saying “The cross is the symbol of torture, of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. I prefer the dollar sign.” Do you truly feel that two thousand years of Christianity can be summed up with the word “torture?”


(LCW)   I feel the whole premise of the comment is unfair and misinformed. I never heard her say such a thing, and I give her the benefit of the doubt, since she responds to the question immediately that it was never said. The question should have been vetted better, it sounds much like the ad-hominem attacks she must endure from so much of her opposition.


(Ayn Rand)   To begin with, I never said that. It’s not my style. Neither literarily nor intellectually. I don’t say I prefer the dollar sign—that is cheap nonsense, and please leave this in your copy. I don’t know the origin of that particular quote, but the meaning of the dollar sign is made clear in Atlas Shrugged. It is the symbol, clearly explained in the story, of free trade and, therefore, of a free mind. A free mind and a free economy are corollaries. One can’t exist without the other. The dollar sign, as the symbol of the currency of a free country, is the symbol of the free mind. More than that, as to the historical origin of the dollar sign, although it has never been proved, one very likely hypothesis is that it stands for the initials of the United States. So much for the dollar sign.

Now you want me to speak about the cross. What is correct is that I do regard the cross as the symbol of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.


(LCW)   I have always enjoyed her characterization of the dollar sign, whether true or not. It illustrates a position of admiration for the man who thinks, and for the country that allows him to do so.

Her criticism of Christian philosophy is well-founded. I have always found it difficult to rationally accept the premise that Christ was the human ideal, and the narrative of many being that man was made in the image and likeness of god. Personally, I find that to be a noble goal, and it means we may someday find ourselves as 'his' equal, which would be satisfying and possibly make the whole search for enlightenment that much more meaningful, to actually sit with god as an equal at some point, but I don't think that is what they were inferring when they spoke of the image and likeness of god. The whole immaculate conception narrative and the birth of Jesus to a member of mankind always made me uncomfortable. Why would a god find it necessary to do such a thing? Seems a bit melodramatic and manipulative. Now, I know that the literacy of adults at the time of the origination of the Bible was little better than a child, and therefore it was nothing more than an effort to teach somewhat difficult concepts to a naive audience, perhaps to gain the attention and perhaps obedience of the 'flock', but would god not have known that man was inevitably going to be something much more astute and discerning at some point in the future, when the Bible would still be in existence and predictably remain under investigation and analysis? I can’t believe that he was unaware of the inexorable future that was to come. If there ever was or is a god, I would expect a greater awareness of such an eventuality. This god comes across more as human than divine.

If Jesus is something that we need to emulate, and then we have him sacrifice his life to save us from our sins that were fabricated to begin with, I have no choice but to question, with great skepticism, if the narrative, and those who promote it, are legitimate and valid representatives of said god.

Her characterization of the nature of sacrifice, vis a vis Christianity, is compelling and virtually impossible to refute. How does one respect such an ideology? How can I be anything but suspicious? If it was god who gave me reason and intellect, how can he possibly ask me to suspend that same reason and intellect, and to dismiss and refuse to use that significant ability to discern truth, even when reflecting on his existence? I find that to be a tough call.


(AT)   Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?


(Ayn Rand)   Qua religion, no – in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very – how should I say it? – dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.


(LCW)   She makes some extremely valid points, but I find weakness in many of the issues she attempts to explain. Her points on faith are fairly specific, but I would posit that we use faith each and every day of our life. We have faith in our relationships. Even though the target of our affection may exhibit attributes that we determine are of value, they may also normally have qualities that are suspect, confusing and contradictory at times and yet we, in the end, have faith in their abilities to be more good than bad.

We have faith in science and the world around us. We have faith that our cars and our houses will not simply blow up, even as we reassure ourselves that they are built on solid and logical scientific premises. We have faith as well as confidence when we take a plane flight or offer ourselves up to a doctor for an operation. I realize there are degrees, and much evidence and information to give us reason to ‘trust’ them, but it still has a component of faith involved. I am more inclined to agree with her when she speaks of the facts of reality and conclusions of reason, but they are not absolutes and can be wrong as often as they are right, and different with each and every individual that exists on this earth.

Religions can certainly teach us lessons, the stories and parables in the Bible can be very instructive and helpful, in conjunction with our own abilities as to insight and comprehension. She is right when she says that they (religions) are immature versions of philosophy and are derivative of the bigger concept of the search for truth. One of my favorite musings on this subject was given clarity in the quote;

Philosophy without religion ‘IS’
Religion without philosophy ‘IS NOT’

~ ki ~

(LCW)   This by no means negates religion but only observes that no religion of any value can exist without philosophy, without reason and choice. Without these things, they inevitably transform into cults and dangerous environments where the individual is taken out of the equation. Religion can be of significant value, even when based on undeveloped or deficient philosophies, as well as bad philosophies based on irrational concepts and inferior conclusions or managed by inappropriate individuals. These things are all possible in a world populated by human beings. We are an extremely young, naive, and immature species. There can be no inevitable result, but will eventually be determined by those yet to be born (or aborted). We are virtually the gods of our own existence. It has always been thus.


(AT)   Then you would say that if you had to choose between the symbol of the cross and the symbol of the dollar, you would choose the dollar?


(LCW)   What kind of a choice is that? The questions are quickly deteriorating into a silly game with irrational self-serving interests. I do hope this is only a diversion, it is certainly a mistake.


(Ayn Rand)   I wouldn’t accept such a choice. Put it another way: If I had to choose between faith and reason, I wouldn’t consider the choice even conceivable. As a human being, one chooses reason.


(LCW)   There really can be no other choice, if we are allowed to have one.


(AT)   Do you consider wealthy businessmen like the Fords and the Rockefellers immoral because they use their wealth to support charity?


(LCW)   I think the real question is if they actually ‘are’ supporting charity, or have other motives that are not so clear and unambiguous. We need to question the motivations and incentives that gave them the opportunity for wealth to even consider being charitable.


(Ayn Rand)   No. That is their privilege, if they want to. My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue.


(LCW)   And the answer to the inevitable question as to whether Ayn Rand believes in charity for the poor is once again answered, and soon to be forgotten. It has never been about charity, but about the coercive concept of altruism. Altruism is not charity, even if some receive some charitable benefit from it. It is about nothing except coercion and control, and the dictatorial expectation that every single human being will do what someone like Auguste Comte deems appropriate and integral to the human condition. It is the epitome of socialism, also created and developed by Comte, to do the same in the political and economic arena, ‘sans’ charity.


(Ayn Rand)   What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.


(LCW)   The naked essence of collectivism versus objectivism. Virtue or duty. Virtue, chosen by the individual, or duty, chosen by some nameless bureaucrat, or self-evident dictator tyrant.


(AT)   What is the place of compassion in your philosophical system?


(Ayn Rand)   I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.


(LCW)   She has explained this in much more detail many times, and a bit more articulate as well. But take the time to read and listen to your own mind as it plays the words over and over. Ironic, but Rand talks of black and white reality, and then tries to explain rational self-interest or even in this instance, compassion. It cannot be black and white, no matter how much you would like it to be.

It is dependent on the individuals involved, the circumstances that exist within society, and within the paradigm in which the individuals live. Who decides who is innocent, or who is morally guilty? We all do, of course.

In opposition to Rand, why can I not feel guilty towards the torturers? Are they all woven from the same cloth? Are none of them compelled to do what they do because of fear and weakness? Is there no doubt in anyone’s mind as to that possibility?

In a black and white reality, compassion is relegated to a secondary importance, when, at least some of the time, it can and should be a primary. Each case is based on its own intrinsic qualities and circumstances. I will make conclusions based on my interpretation of the reality available to me, and the perspectives of Rand or anyone else will be of little consequence except what I give it, nothing but another piece of data that I will accept or reject. No one else gets to make that decision.

Can it be an act of treason against the victims? I guess so. I would have to agree that it will always remain a possibility, and yet, it will never be an absolute.

 
 

****************************************************

 
 
The interview continues with Part III which should appear shortly in the folder. Feel free to observe and comment. Legitimate and reasonable commentary will be appended to the essay in the future.

LCW