I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead back in my twenties and I was
taken with Ayn Rand’s view of the world. Or rather how the world
ought to be. Now that I’ve become a Christian I’ve abandoned my
youthful fascination with Rand.
At
the same time I was reading Rand I was practicing Buddhism. I know
they don’t go together very well. Just as with Rand my conversion
to Christianity has left Buddhism behind. I’d say there is truth in
both, but not the whole truth.
While
discussing these two disparate philosophies a good friend of mine put
up this thought experiment. Imagine Ayn Rand and the Buddha trying to
cross a river. Rand would no doubt build a bridge. Destroying at
least a little bit of the beauty of nature. The Buddha on the other
hand would simply wade into the river and let the current take him
across. At one with nature. Sounds good doesn’t it. At the time I
agreed that Buddha had the better take on this.
What
this thought experiment fails to take into consideration is that the
world, the river in this analogy, is not a peaceful stream doing us
no harm. It is a dangerous place full of twists and turns and
waterfalls. There are two bad outcomes if you just let yourself just
be taken by the current of life. First it is quite possible you will
never get where you are going. Second there could be a thousand foot
waterfall just around the bend you didn't see.
Don't
think I am implying Ayn Rand's solution is the correct one in this
scenario. As with all of life a balance should be struck. There is
a middle ground or fine line. Before building the bridge maybe you
should have found the low water crossing that was ten feet away.
1 comment:
I am fond of both of those books. The Fountainhead probably a bit more than Atlas Shrugged. There are certainly aspects of her Objectivist philosophy that are radical (and I don't buy into), but there is something I value in the way she envisions the individual. It's romantic and idyllic and I value its aspirational intent. I also value her emphasis on rational thought and reason.
As for the river, an Objectivist would probably ask why first. Why does one need to cross the river? What is the purpose? If it's deemed of worth, you make your assessment of the situation. You probably go down river to see what it's like. You probably test how deep it is if you can. You probably check to see if there's a better spot to cross. If you have to cross at that one spot, for argument's sake, you probably trade your resources for the labor of a skilled carpenter to build a makeshift bridge or something. :)
You're right about Rand's view of nature. She (as do I) didn't see it as something with intrinsic value.
Cheers
Non
Post a Comment