Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ayn Rand's views on transcendentalism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

"Among transcendentalists' core beliefs was an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the physical and empirical and is only realized through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions."

From the wiki for transcendentalism

Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both.

Ayn Rand

I believe that settles it. Ayn Rand hated mysticism (this is a link) of all kinds, so it's safe to assume she also hated this form of it.

If you wish to argue whether knowledge of God is within us to be "read" through intuition (or just read the discussion on the subject), there's a red hot Tabula Rasa thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that settles it. Ayn Rand hated mysticism (this is a link) of all kinds, so it's safe to assume she also hated this form of it.

If you wish to argue whether knowledge of God is within us to be "read" through intuition (or just read the discussion on the subject), there's a red hot Tabula Rasa thread.

Great, thanks.

And I will be arguing no point of the sort, I simply needed a quote from her. I don't believe in mysticism of any type either, and I find transcendentalism to be completely flawed, and a philosophy for the weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Time to revive an old thread. Obviously Rand wouldn't be interested in some of the more religious/spiritual beliefs of the transcendentalists, but there seems to be some beliefs they have in common, especially some of the following transcendentalist beliefs:

Living close to nature

Dignity of manual labor

Need of intellectual companionships

Humans are divine in their own right

Self-trust and self-reliance

Democracy

Individualism – belief in yourself and your ideas

Non-conformity

I've searched but I'll ask again if Rand ever spoke/wrote of the transcendentalists and their fierce belief in individualism, non-conformity, and democracy. We're studying Anthem right now and want to use this as a springboard discussion for my students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously Rand wouldn't be interested in some of the more religious/spiritual beliefs of the transcendentalists, but there seems to be some beliefs they have in common, especially some of the following transcendentalist beliefs:

Living close to nature

Dignity of manual labor

Need of intellectual companionships

Humans are divine in their own right

Self-trust and self-reliance

Democracy

Individualism – belief in yourself and your ideas

Non-conformity

"Living close to nature" is certainly not a belief that Ayn Rand held or defended. I can see how you might think that if the only thing of her's you've read is Anthem, but in reading her main works it becomes clear just how much she enjoys being around man's creations. New York City is the place she chose to live when she could have lived anywhere.

She also argued in Atlas Shrugged that intellectual labor was morally undervalued relative to manual labor, pointing out the fact that the manual laborers of today are much more productive than the manual laborers of the past, not because of anything they are responsible for but because of the advances made in thought and technology. The theme of Atlas Shrugged was the role of man's mind in his life, and specifically in production.

"Self-trust" and individualism as "believe in your ideas" aren't really part of her thought either. Three of her favorite words were "check your premises." You cannot believe in ideas simply because you hold them; you have to check them against reality. Reality is the ultimate arbiter, not simply your mind in isolation. The individualism she supported was the moral importance of the individual, not some nebulous notion of believing your own ideas.

Democracy was most definitely not valued by Rand or Objectivism. Rather, it is viewed (properly) as tyranny of the majority. Rand supported a government limited to enforcement of rights by a constitution, not by majority vote.

In short, the transcendentalists seem to have little of value to offer from the Objectivist perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Living close to nature" is certainly not a belief that Ayn Rand held or defended. I can see how you might think that if the only thing of her's you've read is Anthem, but in reading her main works it becomes clear just how much she enjoys being around man's creations. New York City is the place she chose to live when she could have lived anywhere.

She also argued in Atlas Shrugged that intellectual labor was morally undervalued relative to manual labor, pointing out the fact that the manual laborers of today are much more productive than the manual laborers of the past, not because of anything they are responsible for but because of the advances made in thought and technology. The theme of Atlas Shrugged was the role of man's mind in his life, and specifically in production.

"Self-trust" and individualism as "believe in your ideas" aren't really part of her thought either. Three of her favorite words were "check your premises." You cannot believe in ideas simply because you hold them; you have to check them against reality. Reality is the ultimate arbiter, not simply your mind in isolation. The individualism she supported was the moral importance of the individual, not some nebulous notion of believing your own ideas.

Democracy was most definitely not valued by Rand or Objectivism. Rather, it is viewed (properly) as tyranny of the majority. Rand supported a government limited to enforcement of rights by a constitution, not by majority vote.

In short, the transcendentalists seem to have little of value to offer from the Objectivist perspective.

Thank you. This insight has broadened our discussion in many ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

orpheus, I've barely begun to look into concepts of spiritual transcendence so my knowledge of it is limited. Within the Objectivist framework, I believe it is essentially opening up one's psycho-epistemological barriers to allow a unison between the the conscious and sub-conscious creating a sort of system or engine.

In terms of Rand's views, well she had a very particular form of spirituality: the spirituality of the trader. From aynrandlexicon.com search Trader Principle and you'll find:

We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect.

It seems the transcendence of an Objectivist is still one attached to the pleasures and rewards of the Earth, which is an interesting departure from the Platonist mysticism of previous eras.

Likewise, there's a Youtube floating around with an interview of Ayn Rand where she explains the view that our life here on Earth is the eternal life sought out by other religious systems. Again, this view of spirituality attached to this world, this Earth, and our present state of humanity.

Edited by Dingbat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the transcendence of an Objectivist is still one attached to the pleasures and rewards of the Earth, which is an interesting departure from the Platonist mysticism of previous eras.

Nowhere in the quote you cited does Ayn use or even refer to the word "Earth" -- it appears to be your own quasi-epithetical attempt to devalue "Earthian" versus whatever might be "above" it ...

I think it's your own off-kilter spin here, Dingbat -- much as I have been enjoying your posts lately, you really made me do a double take with this one.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Ayn Rand wrote and lectured on her philosophy—Objectivism, which she characterized as "a philosophy for living on earth."
"A Brief Biography of Ayn Rand." The Ayn Rand Institute. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biography. Feb 18, 2011.

It's true, "Earth," in some sense, is kind of limiting. I'm sure we can envision a future exploring the stars. But, I'm sure we can understand the sense of life of that statement regardless.

Edited by Dingbat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

orpheus, I've barely begun to look into concepts of spiritual transcendence so my knowledge of it is limited. Within the Objectivist framework, I believe it is essentially opening up one's psycho-epistemological barriers to allow a unison between the the conscious and sub-conscious creating a sort of system or engine.

In terms of Rand's views, well she had a very particular form of spirituality: the spirituality of the trader.

Rand defined "spiritual" as pertaining to man's consciousness. As such, her concept of spirituality extends far beyond that of the "trader," which is a concept which describes one's relationships to others. More fundamental than that was her conception of the role that one's consciousness plays in relating to reality. If you examine her outline of her moral theory, every virtue has a material and a spiritual aspect; every virtue relates man's consciousness to his physical existence. Her conception of spirituality was one which was fully integrated with a physical, material existence. Accordingly, she conceived any artificial separation of physical and spiritual as a false dichotomy.

It seems the transcendence of an Objectivist is still one attached to the pleasures and rewards of the Earth, which is an interesting departure from the Platonist mysticism of previous eras.

There is no transcendence in Objectivism. Objectivist spirituality is not about transcending the material world, but rather properly integrating one's consciousness with it. Reality is what it is; if something is a part of reality, we have to deal with it, not transcend it; and if something is not a part of reality, we should simply ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no transcendence in Objectivism. Objectivist spirituality is not about transcending the material world, but rather properly integrating one's consciousness with it. Reality is what it is; if something is a part of reality, we have to deal with it, not transcend it; and if something is not a part of reality, we should simply ignore it.

I think transcendence is a useful concept because I think it is the way of proper integration. Integration happens in the conscious mind, which is the spirit as you observe, but the conscious mind is not always in a state of being ready for complete integration of reality. I think it is because somehow we've limited our psycho-epistemology probably due to irrational beliefs or past traumas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think transcendence is a useful concept because I think it is the way of proper integration.

Okay, so for starters define transcendence and relate it to the relationship between the conscious mind and the subconscious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define it as the removing of psycho-epistemological barriers that afflict our sentience.

Ideally, the conscious and subconscious should work hand in hand in our exploration and participation of reality. But, how we even communicate or what information we allow to pass between the conscious and subconscious is defined by a set of rules called the psycho-epistemology. I believe these set of rules are established quite arbitrarily when we are still very young through various experiences. Now, in this day in age of humanity with all it's irrational pressures, no doubt most people are primed from the beginning to be very repressive about their degree of sentience. Rand, as a philosopher, does a very impressively genius job of explaining what is, especially in terms of our mental/spiritual faculties. I think, however, one can figure out, using Objectivist concepts of the consciousness, subconsciousness, and psycho-epistemology especially, how to remove these barriers through practices like honest self-reflection, therapy, getting high, or even meditation. All of these techniques of unlocking our full spectrum of sentience I call transcendence.

Edited by Dingbat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define it as the removing of psycho-epistemological barriers that afflict our sentience.

That's not a definition of what it is. You're just saying what it supposedly does. It doesn't get the concept any closer to being defined, it just turns your argument into begging the question.

honest self-reflection, therapy, getting high, or even meditation

That at least explains what you're referring to. However, it's not the definition of a valid concept. A valid concept groups together concretes or lesser abstractions that are alike (have a common essential attribute). Honest self-reflection and getting high, for instance, are exact opposites, they have nothing in common.

And, to get back to the purpose of this thread (the OP was asking about Miss Rand's views on the subject, not yours), Ayn Rand considered most of those things on your list as harmful to the development of a rational mind. Most therapy and meditation relies on mysticism, not knowledge of reality. As for getting high, that's the exact opposite of embracing knowledge of reality. It's escaping reality.

So your answers to the OPs question are entirely misleading. Ayn Rand did not view your idea of transcendentalism as a positive at all.

Edited by Tanaka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just direct you to a forum discussion I've participated in about drugs and how I think people mistake Rand's opinion as Objectivist dogma found here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=16092&st=0

Rand didn't do drugs so I wouldn't use what she says as a standard. I also wouldn't talk so much about doing harm since Rand smoked cigarettes. I'm also not saying people should do drugs. It's very important to have the right mindset to handle such vivid, even life-changing, experiences. Their ability to remove psycho-epistemological barriers can be so intense that you will experience things you did not know you had the potential to, for example. This can be very shocking for some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think transcendence is a useful concept because I think it is the way of proper integration. Integration happens in the conscious mind, which is the spirit as you observe, but the conscious mind is not always in a state of being ready for complete integration of reality. I think it is because somehow we've limited our psycho-epistemology probably due to irrational beliefs or past traumas.

The word you want, I think, is "inductance", not "transcendence".

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 years later...
On 2/16/2011 at 10:18 AM, Dante said:

 

"Living close to nature" is certainly not a belief that Ayn Rand held or defended. I can see how you might think that if the only thing of her's you've read is Anthem, but in reading her main works it becomes clear just how much she enjoys being around man's creations. New York City is the place she chose to live when she could have lived anywhere.

 

She also argued in Atlas Shrugged that intellectual labor was morally undervalued relative to manual labor, pointing out the fact that the manual laborers of today are much more productive than the manual laborers of the past, not because of anything they are responsible for but because of the advances made in thought and technology. The theme of Atlas Shrugged was the role of man's mind in his life, and specifically in production.

 

"Self-trust" and individualism as "believe in your ideas" aren't really part of her thought either. Three of her favorite words were "check your premises." You cannot believe in ideas simply because you hold them; you have to check them against reality. Reality is the ultimate arbiter, not simply your mind in isolation. The individualism she supported was the moral importance of the individual, not some nebulous notion of believing your own ideas.

 

Democracy was most definitely not valued by Rand or Objectivism. Rather, it is viewed (properly) as tyranny of the majority. Rand supported a government limited to enforcement of rights by a constitution, not by majority vote.

 

In short, the transcendentalists seem to have little of value to offer from the Objectivist perspective.

I agree with you that if "self-trust" is seen as "believe in your ideas" Rand would disagree with transcendentalists. However, when reading Emerson's Essay on Self-Reliance, I found he used it differently, as not discounting your own ideas while elevating the thoughts of others, to search and identify what thoughts come from you and to hone them. I could see Rand agreeing with this, although I do agree with you that she'd disagree with the spiritual aspects of transcendentalism. I've read Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead, but not any of her nonfiction works, so you know where I'm coming from. A lot of her stories center on the main character having the strength to stand separate from society, so that part of Emerson rings similarly. I'll include it below (partly because it's a fun quote).

 

"Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his . . . There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...