Spirituality and Objectivism

[K-Mac]

I finished Atlas Shrugged last month and just received The Fountainhead in the mail. (Hope to start it next weekend.) I know I have much to learn, so please pardon my ignorance. I performed a search to find the answer to my question without success. I am hoping someone will either point me in the right direction or let me know their thoughts.

I cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of spirituality during certain situations and I am struggling with where to put it. I was raised in a Baptist church in Texas, but rejected those ideas (and all religion) nearly from the start. So what do you call this feeling?

For example, since moving to Colorado last summer, I have seen many things in nature that fill my body with an expanding lightness and peacefulness that I can only describe as spiritual. Since I don't believe in a supreme being, what is it? Is it just simple awe at what I'm witnessing, or is it something deeper? Witnessing a birth or death is another example.

Do Objectivists believe in any higher force or power? Is anything "bigger" than we are? I tend to think that things are what they are, and when we die, for example, we are just as we were before being born. Then this spiritual feeling will come along and make me question that. Is it just old religious indoctrination trying to slip back into my consciousness?

[Tabitha]

I've had experiences similar to what you're describing. I consider myself "spiritual" inasmuch as the word dennotes a psychological well-being. The feeling of peace is within myself, which in turn comes from mental integration and the ways in which I interpret the world around me. I find this feeling becomes heightened when I'm reading a really good piece of Objectivist literature or have other 'realizations.' Mental feats, even smaller ones, create a "high." So, I consider my spirituality a psychological reaction to myself and various events.

However, I have mixed feelings about the word "spiritual" itself. While I don't believe in "spirits," I use the word because it's the only one I know that pinpoints this feeling of well-being. (Does anyone else use a different word for this? Also, is this an example of "Sense Of Life?")

Edited June 19, 2007 by Tabitha

[K-Mac]

Mental feats, even smaller ones, create a "high." So, I consider my spirituality a psychological reaction to myself and various events.

However, I have mixed feelings about the word "spiritual" itself. While I don't believe in "spirits," I use the word because it's the only one I know that pinpoints this feeling of well-being. (Does anyone else use a different word for this? Also, is this an example of "Sense Of Life?")

I think that's what it is...a psychological "high" that I'm probably getting mixed up with what religious people consider a religious experience. It's tough to get religious indoctrination out of your habits, even when you know with certainty you don't believe it. It's like experiencing great pain or agony and crying out, "Oh, God!" when you're not really speaking to God.

What is "Sense of Life?" (Remember, I'm new to all of this.)

[KendallJ]

I think the emotion is real, but what it is connected to is the problem, isn't it. Rand used spritual in the sense of "pertaining to consciousness" and certainly her novels give you that sense right? If you think of instances then, you'll see that Rand seemed to have and take note of this emotion, but it was connected to something different.

I've backpacked since I was a kid, and know what you mean about nature. BUT... try this. Drive to the top of the Continental Divide in Rocky Mountain National, and get out, and see how you feel. Now, go back down to Grand Lake, and hike your way back to the CD via the Tonahutu Creek Trail. Now, how do you feel? It's not nature that's doing it to you (at least not to me...). 10 bucks says the high is 10 times as intense in the second senario. This was something I realized after Rand. Whenever you see this feeling or get this feeling in Rand's works, it always has to do with something related to man, and man's life. Something involving pride, satisfaction, admiration, accomplishment. It's not the nature that does it to you, as much as you climbing there.

I had a friend recently capture this emotion as the feeling of "being gloriously alive", and I think that that is what you are feeling. You tell me if it isn't the case... It is spiritual, but you don't need a supernatural being to generate the feeling. It comes from your own self-esteem.

And I'll leave you with some past views that made me feel gloriously alive, but only because I make the effort to get there.

Edited June 19, 2007 by KendallJ

[Robert J. Kolker]

I've had experiences similar to what you're describing. I consider myself "spiritual" inasmuch as the word dennotes a psychological well-being. The feeling of peace is within myself, which in turn comes from mental integration and the ways in which I interpret the world around me. I find this feeling becomes heightened when I'm reading a really good piece of Objectivist literature or have other 'realizations.' Mental feats, even smaller ones, create a "high." So, I consider my spirituality a psychological reaction to myself and various events.

However, I have mixed feelings about the word "spiritual" itself. While I don't believe in "spirits," I use the word because it's the only one I know that pinpoints this feeling of well-being. (Does anyone else use a different word for this? Also, is this an example of "Sense Of Life?")

How about a touch of grandeur? That is what I experienced the first time I saw the Grand Canyon live and for real.

Bob Kolker

[K-Mac]

It's not the nature that does it to you, as much as you climbing there.

I had a friend recently capture this emotion as the feeling of "being gloriously alive", and I think that that is what you are feeling. You tell me if it isn't the case... It is spiritual, but you don't need a supernatural being to generate the feeling. It comes from your own self-esteem.

I think you're right. What you're saying really hits home with me. Awesome photos, by the way.

As an aside, I have been to the National Park and seen the CD, but I have not hiked to it from Grand Lake. How difficult is that trek? The only reason I ask is because I broke my tib/fib in January and still walk w/ a slight limp. The doctor says I should be back to normal by next Spring (as though nothing ever happened) but I'm wondering if that particular hike would be too much for me at this point? (I assume so.) I can take a look at my map once I'm home to assess the difficulty, but since you've "been there/done that"....

How about a touch of grandeur?

I think that's a nice way to put it without using "spiritual."

Edited June 19, 2007 by K-Mac

[KendallJ]

As an aside, I have been to the National Park and seen the CD, but I have not hiked to it from Grand Lake. How difficult is that trek? The only reason I ask is because I broke my tib/fib in January and still walk w/ a slight limp. The doctor says I should be back to normal by next Spring (as though nothing ever happened) but I'm wondering if that particular hike would be too much for me at this point? (I assume so.) I can take a look at my map once I'm home to assess the difficulty, but since you've "been there/done that"....

Well, with an injury, I would not recommend it. It will take you at least 1 1/2 days to get there, so a 2-3 day round trip maybe. However, if you get a chance, the back side of RMN is the better side really if you like to hike. The front side slopes gently then steeply, meaning you can park your car and walk to some of the views above. The front side is highly visited by tourists (as is the Cont Divide overlook). However, the back side rises steeply first then gradually (so the "good views" are "way in the back"), following creek beds up into some grand hidden valleys and high lakes that are at least a days hike away meaning they are much undisturbed.

The link I provided is to a map showing the park trails.

Edited June 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of spirituality during certain situations and I am struggling with where to put it. I was raised in a Baptist church in Texas, but rejected those ideas (and all religion) nearly from the start. So what do you call this feeling?

Do Objectivists believe in any higher force or power? Is anything "bigger" than we are?

If you mean, is there a supreme being, then I would say no; I would also say that certain awe inspiring vistas are not a sign of God. Objectivism is man-centered and self-esteem is a primary value, so searching for something "greater than oneself" is going in the wrong direction -- something to append oneself to because oneself is not enough to either comprehend existence or to live one's life. In Objectivism, rationality is enough, and we don't need to be either guided by or babysat by a supreme being in order to make it.

I think spirituality is a difficult topic, because of the religious baggage that comes with that term. Miss Rand speaks about this in the Introduction to The Fountainhead. The sense of being at peace with oneself or being inspired by something that one observes comes about because it is your positive emotional response to your mental grasp of something in relation to your life. A grand vista, for example, is grasped consciously and your emotional reaction, in essence, is to say yes to the natural beauty one is surrounded by -- that life on earth can be a beautiful experience. And by beautiful here I mean in accordance with man's life as the standard. I think it might also be the case that, for example, when one is hiking up a trail and turns a corner to see a grand vista and feels awe that this is your way of emotionally rewarding yourself for earning that view, because you got there by your own effort.

However, I certainly do not think that this type of reaction is only possible if one hikes in the wilderness. A scenic overpass that one can stop at along a highway can be just as inspiring, provided one keeps in mind that someone had to build the road in order for you to get that view. In this case, the awe ought to contain at least some measure of thanks to the builder of the road.

Likewise, there are man-made grand vistas, such as viewing the skyscape of a great city, in which case one ought to be thanking the architects for designing such beauty.

I also enjoy some of the grand vistas that are available via photographs of modern cosmology. I don't feel small when I view these because I can mentally grasp what they are, and it extends the beauty of nature to more than just the earth. The whole universe is a place for man in that he can enjoy the view, even if he can't get there, yet.

In short, I think having a "spiritual response" means having a positive emotional reaction to something that is all-encompassing; but one's emotions are based on one's value system, something that is unknown by many people, so they just come up with something like "God was speaking to me" instead of being introspective and finding out what values they are responding to and changing them when appropriate by checking one's premises to become more rational.

Miss Rand was not against "a spiritual response" so long as one knew where that response came from and did not become a mystic because one had a strong, all-encompassing, positive emotion. Such a response is not a sign of God, but rather a sign of man's mind valuing something because one can grasp it with one's rational mind.

[K-Mac]

That is an awesome response, Thomas. Thank you so much. I plan to start The Fountainhead this weekend and now I'm eager to read the Introduction.

With regards to man-made structures causing this awe-inspiring feeling we are writing of, I understand exactly what you mean. I recently watched the documentary, The Bridge, which is about people committing suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge (and is a film I highly recommend.) During certain scenes of the movie that showed wonderful vistas of the bridge, I couldn't help but feel moved and I remember thinking how awesome an undertaking it was. I also felt appreciation for the designers and builders of the bridge. I also felt sorrow and appreciation for the men who died building it.

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. This is why I joined this forum, to help better understand my emotions and beliefs and put them somewhere inside me that makes sense. I'm not sure if I'm saying that exactly how I mean, but just like this topic...I know I'm not religious and I don't believe in a higher power, but I wasn't sure how to rationalize my feelings.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Miss Rand was not against "a spiritual response" so long as one knew where that response came from and did not become a mystic because one had a strong, all-encompassing, positive emotion. Such a response is not a sign of God, but rather a sign of man's mind valuing something because one can grasp it with one's rational mind.

I think this needs to be expanded upon.

If you ever noticed, the religionists always claim to worship something that they cannot comprehend. Some of them even go so far as to say that the fact that it cannot be comprehended is the reason why it should be worshipped.

But this is very irrational.

A rational man can only value something once he understands it because it is only by understanding it that one can relate it to one's life -- i.e. comprehension by man's life as the standard is evaluation. Without the availability of facts to make such an assessment, no evaluation is possible. I mean if you don't know what it is, then how can you relate it to anything, let alone man's life qua man?

If someone put a glob of something in front of you and you didn't know what it was, you would be indifferent about it. You might be a little curious and want to investigate its properties, but you would hardly be ecstatic about it. And yet the religionists want you to be humbled by something they call God, which, in principle, can't be comprehended by the mind of man.

This reminds me of some dating services I have tried, where the women will say something like, "I'm a red-head and like to ride bicycles -- love me dearly!" Uh...what? Is that all the information you are going to give me? If so, what's there to love? Of course, then they get angry at you because you didn't love them for who they are; even though they didn't give you a clue.

Supposedly, God is like that.

He doesn't come right out and tell you anything until you've been wondering in the desert for forty days and forty nights, are half-crazed by thirst and starvation, and hallucinatory. Then he appears as a burning bush, when you can't believe your eyes anyhow because of the protein deficiency. And he'll get angry at you if you turn away from him, just like a woman who claims she ought to be loved because she is a red-head.

The moral of the story is, don't act like God -- or that red-head.

Be rational and communicative if you want to find true love.

[armor99]

I think this is one of the hardest concepts that most people have to come to grips with in Objectivist philosophy. Now please do not get me wrong. There are several benefits to being a part of a religious group. It can help give you a sense of community, of belonging, and as a social event base. Some of the teachings of religion are not bad.... and some are even good rules to follow. But the central idea of religion.. (i.e worshipping an omnipotent being) is completly contrary to objectivist philosophy.

To start.... the very definition of religion is anti-logic or reasoning. Religion asks you to believe what you cannot hear, touch, see, or sense in any way. Where objectivism relys on ONLY the senses that man has to be able to understand reality. I have talked to many engineers who are religious and it always strikes me as curious that they can be so logical and rational thinking in their work, and yet if you wrap the most impossible theories in the cloak of "religion" then somehow it is just fine. I can remember watching two people arguing over religion and who was right. The argument went on for an hour or so.... I just could not resist, so I went over and posed the following question to the both of them. "If (and I pointed to one man) you changed your current argument to vanilla ice cream is the best, and you (pointed to the other man) changed yours to chocolate ice cream is the best.... would this argument basically be about the same? Neither of them could understand what I was talking about. The fact is that they were arguing an opinion.... something that cannot be proven. And that with no basis in fact or reality to back it up, the argument was doomed to go no where from the very beginning.

And why exactly do most people... even very logical rational ones hold on to ideas that on some level they "know" cannot be true? The answer is simple..... fear. I know this personally because I feel that fear as much as any man might. What happens if I die and find out I am wrong, and I will be judged and punished. Then I can only say this.... I would think that an omnipotent being would want me to use all of the abilities that I was created with. And that if I was not expected to use my powers of logical thinking and reasoning to the fullest extent, then I should not have been created being self concious. That will be my only defense.... and I hope that it will be good enough. Just my thoughts...

[Lemuel]

Is it just old religious indoctrination trying to slip back into my consciousness?

Speaking from experience, emotional habits are hard to break. I come from a religious background, and it took me a long time to purge those habits. With time, I became more adept at recognizing when those old feelings would arise, discovering their causes, and "changing my mind" about what I was facing. There's no greater validation of holding rational ideas than when your emotional reactions change. Before, I might have reacted with apathy to witnessing some remarkable achievement of science or engineering - now, I stand in awe. Before, I was depressed at my loneliness - now, I understand its cause, and am happy despite it.

Personally, I don't like the word "spiritual", as it's indefinably subjective. In my former self, I would have defined it as having an internal connection to a "higher power", God, that was uniquely mine. However, in the absense of such a higher power, there is no connection to speak of - only an emotional habit. I use the word to occasionally deflect the random religious proselytizer, as the time and place may not be right for a metaphysical discussion, but it's not a word I use to seriously describe myself.

I admire that which others achieve that excel beyond my abilities. I respect those who stand by their own good ideas and refuse to compromise. I seek understanding in all things, and greater knowledge in many. I aspire to be more than I am, to improve myself in every way, work to achieve my goals, and experience happiness when I do, and even when I see progress. I love what is beautiful and appreciate those that create it. Nature fascinates me, not in a mystical sense, but in the sense that each new discovery gives us information that we can capitalize on to enhance and extend human life.

If all of that together can be called "spiritual", I'll accept such a description from another. But it is inaccurate, and I would never say that about myself. Given the context, I'd use another word that more aptly decribed my appoach to living.

[William Scott Scherk]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. This is why I joined this forum, to help better understand my emotions and beliefs and put them somewhere inside me that makes sense. I'm not sure if I'm saying that exactly how I mean, but just like this topic...I know I'm not religious and I don't believe in a higher power, but I wasn't sure how to rationalize my feelings.

Hi K-Mac, you might also benefit from a couple of books, the first by the late Carl Sagan, and the second by William James, from the last century.

Sagan's book is called The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. and contains a rational, science-minded approach to the sense of awe and wonder and 'bigger than self' feelings you have noted.

James book is called The Varieties of Religious Experience** (published in 1902). I recommend it not for its attempts to classify 'religious' experiences (James was, it seems, a Deist of some kind), but for its excellent review of the many ways people feel the feelings you note . . . perhaps you will be able to synthesize a new understanding of your own feelings.

WSS

+++++++++++

** This book has long ago passed out of copyright, and can be found online in full at the link above.

[K-Mac]

Good stuff! Thank you!

[avampirist]

I think spiritualism could very easily be defined psychologically. The only reason why it hasn't been defined is because of religion. If anyone gave it much thought, I think their conclusions would look something like this:

I define "spiritualism" as "focusing your mind in a certain way so as to achieve a certain result. A "spiritual" experience can be defined as an intense elation brought about by chemical reaction in the brain.

This experience can brought about naturally or artificially. Drugs would be a means of achieving an artificial spiritual experience.

A natural spiritual experience would be brought about by being conscious. When your mind is healthy, when your nervous system is functioning efficiently, your brain naturally produces and secretes serotonin, which results in intense happiness. Notice that during a spiritual experience, no matter who claims to have one, colors appear brighter, images are sharper and more memorable. Nobody ever claimed to have a dull spiritual experience.

Also note that "spiritual" experiences are also brought about by intense introspection. Bhuddism

is a great example of this. It's clear to me that there are methods and modes of thinking which are more conducive to happiness. Even if you are a bad philosopher, (Christian), there are means of thinking which result in happiness brought about by delusion.

To think is to be alive! Right?

[DavidOdden]

I think spiritualism could very easily be defined psychologically. The only reason why it hasn't been defined is because of religion. If anyone gave it much thought, I think their conclusions would look something like this:

I define "spiritualism" as "focusing your mind in a certain way so as to achieve a certain result. A "spiritual" experience can be defined as an intense elation brought about by chemical reaction in the brain.

But that contradicts how I define spiritualism -- the belief in some mystical, supernatural power that influences events in the universe, where the mystical force is not rational but is somewhat sentient.

So since we have contradictory definitions, the next step would be to determine who is right and who is wrong in their definition. I propose that you are wrong. Notice that you could conclude that thinking is essential for humans to be alive, thus the majority of your thesis would be right, without misidentifying spiritualism. Spiritualism is a belief in spirits. Ghosts.

[K-Mac]

Spiritualism is a belief in spirits. Ghosts.

Yes, I don't really care for the word due to the religious definition, but I think the word has other meanings. It could also mean your individual sense of life or your "spririt." You know, like the old cheer, "we've got spirit yes we do, we've got spirit, how bout you?!" (No, I was not a cheerleader.)

In all seriousness though, there are other definitions of the word besides religious... http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861711926