RoR: Forum

Andrew, interesting choice, and certainly not without precedent. You might be interested in the following. (For a similar discussion, see Jung's essay on evil and Christianity, "ANSWER TO JOB.")

In my essay "THE TRICKSTER ARCHETYPE AND OBJECTIVISM" I discuss the Nietzche's "transvaluation of values" as it pertains to morality and explore the Romantic poet's use of Milton's Mephistopheles as a hero.

"In The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1793), for example, Blake argued that Milton "was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it" (493). Abrams ([1962] 1968, 1234-35) argues that Blake engages in a 'transvaluation of standard criteria':

"Blake accepted the terminology of middle-class Christian morality
("what the religious call Good and Evil"), but reverses it values. In this
conventional use Evil, which is manifested by the class of beings called Devils and which consigns a man to the orthodox Hell, is everything associated with the body and its desires and consists essentially with the body and its desires and consists essentially of energy, abundance, act, freedom. And conventional Good, which is manifested by Angels and guarantees its adherents a place in the orthodox Heaven, is associated with the Soul (regarded as entirely separate from the body) and consists of the contrary qualities of reason, restraint, passivity, and prohibition. Blandly adopting this current nomenclature, Blake elects to assume the diabolic persona--what he calls "the voice of the Devil"--and to utter "Proverbs of Hell."

Abrams adds that this is only a "first stage" in Blake's "transvaluation" of "simultaneous opposites," for, ultimately, he seeks a "more inclusive point of view a 'marriage' of the contrary extremes of desire and restraint, energy and reason"the prolific 'and 'the devouring'" (1235).
Shelley, who was an atheist, proclaimed himself a follower of "the sacred Milton" in the preface to his lyrical four -act drama, Prometheus Unbound (Shelley 1968. 62). For Shelley, Milton's work entails a kind of transvaluation, in which the Devil, traditionally evil, embodies the good, while God, traditionally good, embodies the evil."

This is also reflected in a cut excerpt from THE FOUNTAINHEAD in the infamous "I Don't think of you" scene.

"Toohey is symbolic of the Devil as pure evil for evil's sake, even if, by Christian standards, Toohey's doctrine of altruism would be considered righteous. (10)

"Roark asks Toohey: 'What am I to you?'Toohey replies that he is Roark's 'antithesis.' Thus,

[f]or every pair of antonyms--light and darkness, life and death--"one is the real, the full, the self-sufficient; the other has no actual existence, except by grace of the first, as its denial." The first does not need the second, but the second needs to deny the first. "God does not demand power. He has it.But it is the Devil who must want to rule, in the absolute, total, the all-inclusive sense--because his reality is the total void." Toohey confesses his metaphysical dependence of Roark: " you don't have to know that I exist. And I --I actually have no meaning without you." He implicitly admits which of them is the self-sufficient God, and which is the power-desperate, destructive Devil. And, almost as an afterthought, Toohey, identifies their fundamental opposition: " I was merely illustrating the nature of opposites I untended no personal allusions. Though I could say that you stand--better than anyone I know--for that embodiment of evil, the Ego. While I stand for the ideal of good--selflessness." (Milgram 2001b, 28; Rand quotes from the second draft of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand Manuscripts, box 21, folder 6, 177-84)

[First appeared as "THE TRICKSTER ICON AND OBJECTIVISM" in THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES (Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 2002, pp. 229-58).] http://www.aynrandstudies.com

Post 41

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:58pm

Hmm...I'm not sure you can hold Jesus responsible for what his "followers" did with his ideas after his death. This has been discussed on SOLO before but there is a section in one of Rand's letters where she seems to suggest, basically, that Jesus' ideas may have been screwed up by the church.

Besides which, Christianity's impact on the west hasn't been entirely negative - St Thomas Aquinas and his followers helped keep Aristotelianism alive in the west.

Post 42

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 2:39pm

Interesting counterpoint, MH. The parallels between Roark and Jesus were not lost on Rand. See, for example, Rand's letter to Sylvia Austin (9 July 1946), wherin she notes the different moral ideas represented by Roark and Jesus, even as she admits "that bothare held as embodiments of the perfect man" (Rand 1995, 287). Interestingly, in an earlier draft of The Fountainhead , Rand included a whole passage, later cut, in which Roark, standing before a jury of his peers, sings the praises of Jesus. Jesus, like other great figures in human history, "comes[s] close to the truth," even as his ideal is inverted. Thus, writes Rand, "Christ proclaimed the untouchable integrity of Man's spirit [stating] the first rights of the Ego. He placed the salvation of one's own soul above all other concerns. But men distorted it into altruism." On the antithetical relationship between Christ and his successors (such as Paul), compares Nietzsche's Antichrist, Chapters 39, 40, and 42 in Nietzsche 1976, 612-17. Rand argues, however, that "Nietzsche, who loved man, fought against altruism--and destroyed his own case by preaching the Will to Power, a second-hander's pursuit" (Ayn Rand Manuscripts, box 20, folder5, 588-588a, quoted in Milgram 2001a, 18).
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 11/18, 2:40pm)

Post 43

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:27pm

Joe,

Yeah the Sylvia Austin letter is what I was referring to also :-)

I've often wondered why she edited the Fountainhead passage. Going a tad off topic here but perhaps Rand feared that the earlier draft would be interpreted as giving some sanction to religion? (Correct me if I'm wrong but if I recall correctly, the original draft mentions not only Jesus but also Martin Luther and a few other religious figures.)

MH

Post 44

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 4:42pm

Two notes:

i) I would suggest that Paul was actively malevolent, not Jesus, who was merely a mistaken personal of spiritual integrity. (nor do I think, considering both Jewish concepts of prophet and Messiah and Pagan concepts of proxyship, that he was delusional).

ii) On the positive aspects of Christianity, re Aquinas. First of all, if it hadn't been for what Christianity broke, I don't see what Aquinas would have needed to fix, or what good he did *except* fix Christianity's mistakes. Secondly, I don;t think Aquinas' place in the Objectivist scheme of history is accurate: he did *not* try to infuse reason into Christianity. Rahter, Aquinas lived in an age where a reintroduced Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelianism, was seriously being to carp on Christianity. What Aquinas did was to attempt, in Walter Kaufmann's words, to "pull the fangs" of not only Aristotle but reason itself, and make the world safe for theology. Aquinas was not a liberal, nor exactly a traditionalist, he was an intelligent, reforming, conservative, something like Peter Viereck in 20th century American politics.

I highly recommend those who accept Rand's theories to read Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy, which shows clearly that Aquinas only appears as primarily a modernizer because we forget the historical context of his time. I'm not particularly trying to bash Aquinas or his breathtaking system, though I do think O'ists (and Rothbardians) have picked up some bad habits from the Scholastics. But I do think Objectivist history is simply here in error, and gives more credit to the Christian aspect of Medieval culture than it deserves. What I think Aquinas did was resystemtize a relatively traditional form of Christianity, for conservative reasons, but at a much more liberal place than Christianity's previous equilibrium because he had been "pushed to the left" by the Averroists and others.

my regards,

Pyrophora Cypriana ))(*)((

Post 45

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 8:51pm

Jeanine (who needs a better picture) writes:

i) I would suggest that Paul was actively malevolent, not Jesus...

ii) On the positive aspects of Christianity, re Aquinas. First of all, if it hadn't been for what Christianity broke, I don't see what Aquinas would have needed to fix, or what good he did *except* fix Christianity's mistakes. Secondly, I don;t think Aquinas' place in the Objectivist scheme of history is accurate: he did *not* try to infuse reason into Christianity. Rahter, Aquinas lived in an age where a reintroduced Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelianism, was seriously being to carp on Christianity. What Aquinas did was to attempt, in Walter Kaufmann's words, to "pull the fangs" of not only Aristotle but reason itself, and make the world safe for theology. Aquinas was not a liberal, nor exactly a traditionalist, he was an intelligent, reforming, conservative, something like Peter Viereck in 20th century American politics....

...But I do think Objectivist history is simply here in error, and gives more credit to the Christian aspect of Medieval culture than it deserves. What I think Aquinas did was resystemtize a relatively traditional form of Christianity, for conservative reasons, but at a much more liberal place than Christianity's previous equilibrium because he had been "pushed to the left" by the Averroists and others.

I think there's a great deal of truth here. Rand had an inexplicable fetish for Aquinas. What about the heroic Peter Abelard with his brutally rational and explicit 'Sic et Non?' He wrote so emphatically, explicitly, and clearly that that pretty much exterminated god then and there. And what about Pierre Bayle? Taking a completely different tact and style, he nevertheless juxtaposed contrary viewpoints in a similar fashion with similar results. In a very real sense Aquinas is pro religion. Abelard and Bayle are anti. Rand's vision seems rather limited here.The two clever, controversial dialecticans above did a great deal to kill religion, and advance the cause of reason and truth.

Post 46

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:11pm

About jesus, we must split him into two characters:

The historical Jesus, the human jesus who actually lived and walked this earth

and the mythological jesus, the demigod jesus who came back from the dead and did all the stuff in the new testament storyline.

Attempting to judge the moral caliber of jesus the man is essentially a futile endeavor. We know virtually nothing about him, or what he really said or did.

The mythological jesus, however, is a monster, both in terms of the real world effects of his following, and in terms of how he acts and speaks within the context of the new testament narrative. He preaches sacrfice and faith, scorns happiness on earth, and, if nothing else, is an accomplice to one of the bloodiest murderers in literature: lets not forget all the slaughters commenced by Yahweh, allegedly the myth-jesus's father, ranging from the old testament to the book of revelation.
(Edited by Robert Bisno on 11/18, 11:12pm)

Post 47

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:16am

Jeanine and Andre,

Very interesting responses. Please do correct me if I'm wrong here as I confess I am not very familiar with Abelard and Bayle's work, but I would have thought that Thomism had much more influence on medieval Christianity - and precisely because Aquinas tried to reconcile faith and reason rather than present them as enemies. In the Middle Ages the vast majority of people would have been scared sh*tless to touch anything explicitly atheistic, but Thomism was more palatable because it was still Christianity. But once people accepted the efficacy of reason, it became a matter of time before they realised they didn't need faith. It also seems to me that as Thomism became more influential in the Vatican, the Church grew warmer towards the Renaissance, giving Michalangelo, Raphael et al their great commissions.

(Note though that pre-Rand, I was for a time a somewhat Thomistic Christian, as I recounted here, so perhaps I'm rather biased in my views on this.)

MH

Post 48

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 10:27pm

Matthew writes:

In the Middle Ages the vast majority of people would have been scared shitless to touch anything explicitly atheistic, but Thomism was more palatable because it was still Christianity. But once people accepted the efficacy of reason, it became a matter of time before they realised they didn't need faith. It also seems to me that as Thomism became more influential in the Vatican, the Church grew warmer towards the Renaissance, giving Michalangelo, Raphael et al their great commissions.

This strikes me as very speculative and WAY too friendly to the Church. I think all those pro-christian intellectual deviants and philosophical perverters knew what they were doing.

But it's hard for me to comment too much here because both the life and thought of Aquinas are pitilessly boring (very unlike Abelard and Bayle) and not much worth reading about. For a deep thinker, this tedium is a crime against humanity.

In some ways, Aquinas is a small version of Kant. He "compartmentalized" (a slimey Clinton word) reason and god, letting both live and thrive, when ultimately only one can survive. Aquinas's work gives great legitimacy and plausibility to religion to this day -- a dreadful evil. Overall, Aquinas strikes me as being (openly and 'honestly') highly tricky and deceptive. The world would have been better off without him. Reason, philosophy, and Aristotle would have advanced better without him. Aquinas's great learning and extensive writing considerably slows down human intellectual progress to this day.

So who and what, in the end, is this great hero of Ayn Rand? An overeducated, overwritten, genial clever liar who advanced reason, philosophy, and Aristotle in the short run, but badly hurt them in the long. Ultimately, Aquinas was a man of god.

Post 49

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 1:32am

Andre,

Ok, thanks for the response. Interesting stuff. Like I said, I haven't read much Adelard and Bayle, so I shall find the time to do so! :-)

MH

Post 50

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 7:52am

I did not vote.

Stalin, Hitler, Kant, ... they would have been nothing without people who acted for them. Those people were more evil.

I had to look up Myra Hindley online because the name meant nothing to me, so perhaps she was not so famously evil. Really, it is sad, but such people do exist and Hindley was not unique.

Mohammed, Siddhartha, Jesus, take your pick, again, it is the other people who glorify them and act in their names who are more evil. And what is "evil"? Was Joan of Arc evil? Clara Barton? Albert Schweitzer?

If the people who kill in the name of Stalin or Jesus are evil, how do Einstein, Szilard, et al., add up?

One night, on patrol as a security guard, I had a face-to-face with a homeless man who almost spoke coherently. His tone of voice was that of a bright person, but the words did not add up. His clothes were not much worse looking than my own casuals. I had to focus on his words to realize that the monologue was content-free.

People who act on the content-free monologues of others are the most evil persons in the world.

Post 51

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 12:47pm

That's the thing. Some people have a capacity to entertain violent thoughts without acting on them. Some people do not.

I voted for Hitler, but any of Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot etc. would have easily topped the list. There is something specially evil about being able to make others do it. There is something about the will to power that makes men mad. I'm grateful that the USA exists, so that such despotic power is kept bound by checks and balances.

Post 52

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 2:01pm

Stalin, Hitler, Kant, ... they would have been nothing without people who acted for them. Those people were more evil.

You got to be kidding me!

Millions of Germans, Russians, Chinese acted in the names of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. They committed terrible deeds. But are they more evil? Of course not!

Next is right that "there is something specially evil about being able to make others do it". And to repeat something I myself said before, Hitler/Stalin/Mao were able to motivate the worst of the society and the worst qualities in people. They are a evil class of their own.

Post 53

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 7:50am

CONTROVERSY BE THY NAME

ALAN GREENSPAN IS THE DEVIL

THIS MAN HAS TREMENDOUS POWER AND INFLUENCES OVER THE WHOLE PLANET!

Post 54

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 1:12pm

Silas,

Was this meant as a joke? Greenspan's an Objectivist...

MH

Post 55

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:43am

TONGUE IN CHEEK

IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE

HE DID CALL IT AS HE SAW IT. BUT IS SOMEONE PULLING HIS STRINGS?

I am have been wounded by his policy and so have a lot of others. I reinvest every 90 days the rates are at a all time low.

I retired at the age of 38 in 1988 I might start looking for a job soon down to the last $10,000 and the annuity is only $3,500 a month.

Back in the days of high inflation and 18% interest (Treasury) he may have been considered a God.

Post 56

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 6:29pm

Deleted

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 10:11pm

Erich, are you serious about Hitler not being evil until 1941?
Try telling that to the Austrians,Czechs,Poles,Belgians,Dutch,French,Finns etc!
Go and get your books out............

Post 58

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 10:27pm

My best estimate of when Adolf hit evil status is sometime between 1910 and 1914. During this period he was a flophouse wanderer, and at some point became immersed in politics. The historical record shows that during this period the man accepted anti-Semitism, Aryan supremacy, the super state, hatred of democracy, admiration of dictatorship, war as mans noblest activity, and paganism as his bastardized mix of a world view. He was a product of the Pan German movement, and the Aryan-Pagan mythos that was popular in the Vienna of the turn of the century.

As for the statistical death count, Stalin was not 1st on the 20th century list; Mao was 1st in total numbers (40 to 60 million), and Pol Pot by percentage (1 out of 4). Stalin comes in 2nd or 3rd depending on on the standard applied.

Personally I do not believe that the 'balance sheet' method of measuring evil is best. My vote is for Mao (but for far more reasons than total numbers), or the Kant/Hegel/Marx trinity. Runner up, and a forerunner of Mao, is Nagarjuna (the eastern Kant).

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/05, 10:49pm)

Post 59

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 11:56pm