Where is John Galt?
UPDATED January 25, 2006. See ADDENDUM below.
My will shall shape the future. Whether I fail or succeed shall be no man’s doing but my own. I am the force; I can clear any obstacle before me or I can be lost in the maze. My choice; my responsibility; win or lose, only I hold the key to my destiny. — Elaine Maxwell
The first time I read this declaration I latched onto it. So Ayn Rand-ish, and those who read here regularly know that Aunt Ayn’s (I wish) philosophical system of Objectivism is one to which I subscribe. It takes an occasional reminder — a recharging — to maintain close adherence to the tenets and principles of Rand’s epistemology and challenge, especially living in the face of dwindling freedom. As citizens of a true democracy … a much overused and abused word, and which the US of A is not and never was … there are few barriers to living and becoming who and what we want to be, few ceilings other than our individual limitations. As personal and civil rights are eroded by an evil, corrupt, and paranoid President and his administration, our natural human tendency is to revert to a defensive posture, sliding down Maslow’s pyramid to a lower level.
This is my declaration of rededication to living a full, productive, and rewarding life, first of all for myself. Only if I am whole can I effectively provide opportunities for others, and then only for those who are willing to take responsibility for their own lives and destinies. The allure of a Rand-ish society will never be completely achieved, but it can provide a model for us to work toward. Even if was possible to recover and restore our country to what it was a few years ago, there would continue to be the regulatory, legal, financial, taxation, healthcare, and security concerns that detract from our abilities and opportunities to control our own lives. We must not allow the current malignancies or their spawn to deter us from the effort.
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.
— John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
Where are you, John Galt?
ADDENDUM February 25, 2006, 8:25 AM CST
This is added in response to the questions raised by Mary Godwin in a comment to the original post. Purists should note that I am in no way an expert in Randian philosophy, just an average dude who has read and is attracted to much of what Ayn Rand has to say.
It is always a danger to talk or write about one of the tenets of a complicated philosophical system, since it could be construed or interpreted as being the system. Rand’s Objectivism “encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.” There are brief descriptions of each of these elements at Wikipedia. For more rigorous treatment, we must turn to the writings of the woman, herself, or to the vast body of analysis and opinion by others.
It does not take long to realize two indisputable things about Ayn Rand and her philosophical system:
Most seekers of truth appear as much to be seeking a banner or label with which to identify, as they are honestly seeking a set of truths to internalize and believe in. To each his/her own … whatever pulls your chain. I’ve honestly never been sure if I was not smart enough to get my arms completely around any particular philosophy or religion or … Or is it that I have yet to find any one system that answers all my needs and questions. Or perhaps I have ADD, meaning I just cannot concentrate or pay attention long enough to totally embrace a system.
I have written before about not liking labels since they tend to restrict and bound me. I do believe that adoption of or belief in a portion, even a majority, of a philosophical system does not preclude our continued exploration and adoption of other ideas. Rand herself seemed to be saying that if you follow her, you must buy in 100%. Purists uphold that. I do not. Her Objectivism encompasses many things that appeal to me. The extreme end of the dogma I cannot go with, if for no other reason than as recognition of reality and the world we live in. I believe in less government, minimal government, but to espouse no goverment is sheer folly.
Mary raises a point that I have not previously considered. Normally I think of philosophical principles as they affect the way I live my life, the way I interact with my fellow travellers, and where I fit in the overall scheme of things in the universe. I am not at all sure how any philosophical system applies to interactions between countries and governments. Need to do some more reading and thinking on that.
There was also implicit in that question a concern about ethical and/or moral issues. I believe that Rand addresses this at least in an indirect way. In a very simplistic interpretation, if I tend to my own life, affairs, and business, and do not interfere with your right to do the same, then there are no moral or ethical issues. This of course assumes that everyone is on the same verse of the same song and singing in the same key. Impossible. This has been the goal of every attempt at Utopian society. Some of them have worked … kinda, sorta … for a while.
Rand, like most philosophers who paint off the edge of the canvas, depends too much on the same verse, same song principle. Hence the creation in Atlas Shrugged of the magical, mystical secret valley where everybody knows your name (Cheers), and where every note of the song is in perfect sync. Only in such an idyllic fictional place could this play out. As soon as I find out where it is, I’m booking fare — one way! Now accepting applications for co-travellers…
7 Comments so far
I followed the links you left here and read (though admittedly from behind very tired eyes) about objectivism and the convictions espoused by this philosophy. A quick look is never enough to know but often enough to pique a curiosity. Here’s my question:
You wrote ” … only for those who are willing to take responsibility for their own lives and destinies.” What do you (we) do with those who are “willing to take responsibility” by employing means that otherwise violate or limit the otherly intended means of another? Many situations come to mind, but what of Dafur, for example, where the desire for oil, international markets, or the benefits of sustained indifference promote and/or make allowance for a state-sanctioned genocide? I don’t mean to be over the top with this example; in fact, an example on any scale would suffice to set forth my question. Does an Ayn Rand answer ultimately reduce to a form of social Darwinism?
Bwah HA HA!
You’re kidding right?
I can’t think of anyone that fits the “Shrugged” bill better than this administration. I’m 100% certain that they’re all convinced that without them controlling-No wait-*PRIME MOTIVATING*–the country, we’d all be grunting and chucking rocks at each other anyway.
I like her writing also. Her book on philosophy is especially good.
It is a scary time to be an American but in some ways the crushing of freedom is happening around the world. Speak your mind, live your life as you feel inside, and pay the price that the culture imposes upon you. What upsets me so much now is how the people in the US are like sheep being led to the slaughter.
I mentioned to a ‘friend’ how frustrating it was that my husband’s name is on the no fly list which means everytime he flies, he has to prove he’s not whoever it was intended for and there appears to be no way to get it off. 300,000 some names. 300,000 people wiretapped and how many more infringed upon because they were talking to them or their name is like theirs? And she said– she felt safer knowing that our gov’t was doing all that. I was appalled, wondering with her attitude if she and I can even maintain a friendship. She had no idea what it feels like to have your name on a list that the gov’t suspects of terrorism, what fear goes through your mind when this gov’t can arrest you and not even bring charges, pull you away from where you live and tell no one– all in the name of safety? That makes zero sense since more people are killed on freeways every year than probably have been by any terrorist attacks in the whole world to date. It’s crazy and the suppressing of freedom for how we live and what we say is not about safety and the worst part is a certain percentage of people in this country are cheering it on
Thank you! Good questions and responses. I am far from being the expert, but you know that has never kept me from offering an opinion…
aldahlia: Humor and play on words notwithstanding, Bush and company exemplify, probably better than any administration in history, the kind of oppressive and incompetent government that Ayn Rand railed against.
Rain: Glad to see you still on the circuit, though without a blog of your own. Yes, one of the most frightening and baffling things to many of us with some ability to think, is the large number of sheep that blindly believe and follow along with whatever Bush says. I would guess that will become a favorite topic of future analysts and writers - the mechanism by which a man of demonstrated lower intelligence, a complete lack of eloquence and charisma, with no visible qualifications for the job, became President and subsequently held sway over so many people.
And Mary: I saved the best and the most difficult till last. This may take more space and need more editing tools than the comment section allows, so check the original post for an addendum.
I’m not joking and one of the most rediculous things about her *obnoxious* “philosophy” is that dichotomy.
She’d have had a problem with the “faith-based” veneer of this administration, but don’t kid yourself.
Someone like Cheney would be “heroic” in a Randian analysis–he’s a businessman that could give a shit less about anthing aside from his own life. Environment? Fuck it. Other people? Fuck ‘em. And, Rumsfield might as well be Howard Roark.
aldahlia, I respectfully disagree. Objectivism has a strong animus towards incompetent, parasitic spoilers. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld are eerily close to the ugly stereotypes with which Rand salted her novels. Though not an Objectivist myself, I think I could make a case that they are interested in destroying prosperity out of fear and spite. Foreign wars, corporate welfare and repressive security state legislation are an effective way to defund and immobilize domestic opposition to the radical state. Whether Rand herself would approve of them, I don’t know. But by the tenets of her philosophy, they’re contemptible.
Winston, FWIW I never thought I would take the side of an Objectivist in a political discussion. Post-Bushism, if we should be so fortunate, I may never do so again.
J. Alva Scruggs, thank you for your comments. I reject labelling generally since it can serve little pupose except to bound and limit me. Therefore, I reject the Objectivist label. Yes I do find much of my interpretation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy appealing. I can also honestly report that I have never found any philosophical or religious doctrine that I perfectly adhere to.
So don’t beat yourself up about taking sides with an Objectivist, cause I ain’t one, not really…