Atlas Shrugged, Part I

            What would happen if a political philosophy became victorious that considered it wrong to be an heroic, creative, and productive individual? Such a political environment might make it almost impossible for new businesses to start, would look negatively upon competition, and would not allow the accumulation of wealth. It might squeeze out all individuality in order to elevate the common good.

Such is the theme of Atlas Shrugged, the 1957 book by Ayn Rand.

            Two things have motivated me to share a few blog entries concerning Atlas Shrugged. One was an email exchange I had with Christian author and financial advisor Gary Moore. He wrote an article for Christianity Today on Rand, and we had a respectful disagreement about what he wrote. His approach was that there was some “juice” in Rand, but it was laced with strychnine. To drink any will poison you. I have enough of the contrarian in me that he wetted my appetite to read it. The book had been on my “to read” list for decades. However, since he was so strong in his opposition, I, of course, had to read it. Contrary to his position, I think Christians can read Rand in the same discerning way they must read all philosophers, but especially when they are atheist. From my perspective, the prevenient grace of God suggests that the atheist can get something right about human nature and life.

            The second thing that motivates this blog is the movie to be released, based upon this novel.

A potential reader of this blog may not be aware of who Ayn Rand is. One can watch the movie of her life and get some sense of how she lived her life. She was not only atheist, but sensual. I find her more zealous fans a hindrance. As I understand it, “Randians” can be intellectually arrogant and so ideologically committed that they are of little practical effect. Such features of Rand, I am sure, are a hindrance to people appreciating the political philosophy she expresses in Atlas Shrugged.

On the positive side, she has a robust view of the nobility of the human being, especially of human rationality. . Productivity, work, and wealth are so often denigrated today, even though they are such important ways of improving life on this planet. Humanity has a noble purpose in being here, and Rand, along with Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, and Hegel, stress this nobility. So many human beings settle for so little, while Rand refuses to let us do that. In the end, Mr. Moore admitted that "some people" can separate "the juice from the poison." I would encourage readers to receive the juice she has to offer.

To state my philosophical problem with Rand briefly, we are social creatures. Aristotle, in fact, in his work Poetics, says that the ability to imitate others is a gift that distinguishes humanity from other creatures. We learn how to be human from what others do and say. Aristotle and many others in the ancient world wrote on friendship, recognizing this social dimension to human life. Yet, even here, Rand has found a way to attract people to her position. In this case, what is attractive is that she figures out a way to assert the human will against the forces of nature, as science describes it. She presents human life as a struggle, for we are simply organisms that come into this world, must struggle to survive in the brief time we have, and then die. For her, the fact that there is no meaning or purpose to human life generally means that it will take courage to live the life one has now. One must face this meaningless life and celebrate one’s self and body, using the mind one has, to do – whatever one chooses to do with one’s life. For some, the challenge to be an heroic individual, standing against the majority, will always attract a following.

            Yet, I submit that none of this philosophy explains the reason for the continuing challenge that Ayn Rand presents to her readers in Atlas Shrugged. In fact, I submit that her atheist, sensual, and egoistic philosophy is a barrier for many people who could benefit from grappling with what I think is her core insight. I also submit that authors like Gary Moore who “warn” people of her general philosophy do so in order to keep people away from the powerful point she makes about the role of government in the lives people. In particular, she has great concern for the “unintended consequences” that an over-regulated and over-taxed economy will have on the primary engine of capitalism, namely, its producers and entrepreneurs. 

            I have just a few more blogs to share about the contents of this book that I find challenging when it comes to developing a political philosophy.