[ Home ] [ Index ] [ Forum ] [ Feedback ] [ Site Map ]

The Atheist's Guide to the

Philosophical Wasteland

Table of Contents

Part I          Introductory Overview

Chapter 1   The Philosophical Wasteland

Chapter 2   Atheism  

Part II         Introduction to the Synchronic Approach

Chapter 3   Marx's Communism

Chapter 4   Rand's Objectivism

Chapter 5   Sartre’s Existentialism

Chapter 6   Nietzsche  

Chapter 7   A Diachronic Chapter

Chapter 8   Conclusions on Atheism and Philosophy

Postscript   More on shareware books

 

Introductory Overview

          The Atheist's Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland is intended to promote critical thinking and serve as a guide to philosophical inquiry. Its goal is not missionary. It does not attempt to convert anyone to atheism nor promote a particular philosophy or worldview. It does not even argue that God does not exist. Instead, this is simply assumed as a starting premise for a deeper analysis of atheism. If there are no gods, regardless of whether this is the case, then what are the implications for philosophy and philosophical issues such as values, meaning and purpose in life?

          The acceptance of God leads people to a wide variety of religions and worldviews, most of which are incompatible with each other. The rejection of religion must also lead to certain philosophical conclusions. It would be tempting to try to create a uniform atheist philosophy and perhaps even an atheist bible. This book has a more limited goal, however, of being a simple guide to philosophical inquiry from an atheistic perspective. As we get further into an analysis of atheism and its implications it will become clearer why a monolithic atheistic philosophy is not possible.

          There are many flavors of atheism. Some atheists are merely skeptical of God’s existence. Others deny God outright. There is very little that defines an atheist other than disbelief in God. There is no bible, authority or required orthodoxy for what an atheist believes. The atheism referred to in this book is simply a definitive denial of God and the rejection of all mystical and supernatural explications of existence.

          Non-atheists may find it interesting to read The Atheist's Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland because it sidesteps the usual attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God and proceeds directly to the philosophical implications of atheism. There is always philosophic value in becoming acquainted with opposing ideas and viewpoints. Atheists and non-atheists alike may be fascinated to discover what, if anything, atheism really entails.

Overview

          Chapter 1 introduces the concept of the philosophical wasteland. How should atheists deal with the huge body of philosophy based on unacceptable theistic premises? The problems with philosophy, however, go much deeper than this. Philosophy, as a discipline, has no discipline. Its purpose and goals are vague and poorly defined. It has no universally agreed upon method. And stylistically, philosophical writing is often very poor. This chapter explores these issues and develops a method for approaching the study of atheism.

          Chapter 2 examines the implications of atheism. Too often philosophers get bogged down trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is a futile exercise. It is not a question that will ever be resolved definitively. The Atheist's Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland assumes atheism as a starting premise in order to proceed to a deeper analysis of its implications. The focus is on philosophical questions concerning the meaning and purpose of life, the justification of values and morality, and the issue of how an atheist should approach existence.

          Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 each look at a different atheistic philosophy. The communism of Karl Marx, the objectivism of Ayn Rand, the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche are analyzed in accordance with methodology and criteria developed in the first two chapters. These four chapters are presented as case studies on how to approach philosophical works and are not comprehensive or definitive analyses of these philosophers. The emphasis throughout is on how to think critically.

          Chapter 7 is a “diachronic” chapter, one of the terms introduced in this book. It includes comparative studies of the philosophies of Marx, Rand, Sartre, and Nietzsche, a look at religion and ideology, and an analysis of how styles of philosophic exposition are linked to method.

          Chapter 8 returns to issues such as the philosophical wasteland, nihilism, the limits of human knowledge, and the irrelevance of truth. It considers how an atheistic perspective affects the nature and scope of philosophy and the implications this may have for the future of philosophic inquiry.

 The Philosophical Wasteland

The Great Conversation

          Philosophy is often referred to as the “Great Conversation”. Philosophers discuss and debate with past and future generations all the profound and important questions about life and existence. Ideas become ageless. Wisdom is preserved and slowly added upon. There is a feeling of progress, that through this great conversation we transcend time and mortality and approach elusive ultimate truths.

          Non-academics, however, often hold philosophy in low esteem. There is a perception not of a great conversation, but of a wasteland where philosophers embroil themselves in endless disputes about issues that have no relevance to the real world or daily life; where there are no enduring answers, only more questions and contradictions; and where long, abstruse, unreadable works abound in which nothing is ever resolved.

          There is no doubt that philosophy elicits passionate reactions. For some, philosophy is the first and greatest of all disciplines, the foundation for all the arts and sciences. At the same time, in no other discipline is there such skepticism and disdain from the general public. Is philosophy a great conversation or a wasteland? We will look closer at the nature of philosophy to determine which perception is more justified.

Philosophy as the quest for truth and knowledge

           Philosophy can be loosely defined as a quest to discover truth and knowledge. This is a vague definition that would apply to most disciplines. But what is philosophy? What types of truth and knowledge does it seek to discover? The sciences describe and explain physical and social phenomena but are limited in that they deal mostly with matters that can be empirically tested. Science does not usually attempt to respond to questions about religion and morality, the meaning of life, and the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge. These fall outside the realm of physical existence and human experience. Philosophy begins where science leaves off and takes up the challenge of responding to these difficult but very important issues. In general terms, the domain of philosophy includes questions that fall outside the realm of the natural and social sciences.

          The differences between science and philosophy bear closer scrutiny. The natural and social sciences all define themselves in terms of their methodology. Each science has a well-delineated field of study and specific objectives to accomplish. Scientific method is universally accepted as the way to achieve these objectives.

          The purpose of philosophy, on the other hand, is vaguely defined: to discover truth and knowledge. There is no agreement on what exactly constitutes the legitimate domain of philosophy or even whether truth and knowledge are possible. Furthermore, there is no universally accepted method for proceeding with philosophic inquiry. There are no codified procedures and no agreed upon first principles. Because of the non-empirical nature of philosophy’s subject matter, scientific method does not always apply. There are different approaches and schools of philosophy but no general agreement by the philosophic community on the key issues of method.

Rules and customs of the “Great Conversation”

          Philosophy defines itself not by its method, but by general rules and customs of the great conversation. There is a general feeling that logic and rigor are good. Inconsistency and contradiction are usually bad. This entails a sense of “usage” similar to grammatical usage in language. People have a sense that speech is either correct or improper although they may not know the specific rule that justifies their belief. Language evolves over time with usage, and what is correct at one time may fall into disuse. Different communities have their own sense of what is right and wrong and may use their own local rules. Speakers of different dialects can generally communicate with one another with occasional misunderstandings. Some dialects evolve to the point where they can no longer be understood even though they are based on the same language.

Philosophical usage

          The methodology of philosophy is in many ways similar to usage. There is general consensus on what constitutes philosophy and on procedures for presenting ideas and theories. Some writers attempt to define their methods and assumptions but most simply expect that other philosophers who are versed in the rules and customs of the great conversation will be able to understand their works. The rules and customs of the great conversation, or philosophical usage if you will, provide a wonderful forum for the exchange of ideas and theories.

          Philosophers who participate in the great conversation can usually understand each other’s works. But communication is not enough. Generally, philosophers want not just to communicate, but also to convince with reason and justification. For this to be possible, there must be an agreed upon methodology. Without a definitive methodology for resolving philosophical issues, nothing can ever by resolved.

Philosophy’s methodological wasteland

          The thesis of this chapter is that the bulk of philosophical writing is a wasteland because of philosophy’s vague and poorly defined purpose and lack of any universally accepted method for evaluating and rejecting ideas and theories.

          Philosophy attracts a wide range of people sharing no common purpose, goals or methodology. This includes scientists and academics but many theologians, new-age thinkers, occultists, mystics, and other persons with tendencies towards the irrational also call themselves philosophers. Part of the reason philosophy is a wasteland is because it has no definitive means of excluding anyone from philosophy. Anyone can call himself a philosopher. Atheists may not consider mystics, occultists, and theists to be true philosophers. They, in turn, might believe that atheists are false philosophers. There is no authority or method for either to define what is acceptable as philosophy. To understand the wasteland better, we will begin by taking a closer look at methodology.

Religious method

          Theists comply with philosophy’s purpose in that they seek truth and knowledge about the world. Religious method is to obtain knowledge by revelation from God. God reveals himself to chosen prophets. These intermediaries pass the divine knowledge and values on to the masses. Scriptures are written and passed down from generation to generation. The question is whether faith, instinct, spirituality, religious scripture and divine revelation can lead to knowledge? As methodology, this is highly suspect.

          The commonality of religion is that it is always based on faith in some form of religious authority. The problem with faith is that there is no way to test or verify it. How do we know that the prophets really received their messages from God? How do we know they were not mistaken, deceived, or made up their stories for personal gain? Thousands of persons throughout history have claimed to be directly linked to God. Many were shysters. Others had deep psychological problems. Who, if any, were telling the truth?

          Reliance on faith is a dubious method for obtaining knowledge. Although, theists share in philosophy’s quest, they do not share the philosophical spirit. They start with pre-held beliefs and have no desire to follow premises to unknown and unwanted conclusions. In every other field of human knowledge, religious indoctrination would be considered unacceptable as a method. The bulk of human knowledge is based on scientific method and the idea that, wherever possible, all beliefs and ideas must be empirically tested. Advances in human knowledge and technology grew by leaps and bounds once mankind accepted this principle and did away with reliance on superstition and faith as a basis for knowledge.

Reveling in mysteries and the unexplained

          The starting point for religion has always been the human need to explain the unknown. Superstitions and religions attempt to fill the gaps in human knowledge and give the “big picture”. A commonality of religion is the psychological need to revel in mysteries and the unexplained. If everything were explained by science there would be no need for gods. Mysteries that cannot be solved lead to God. Theists promote mysteries and miracles as proof of God’s existence and resist attempts to offer non-religious explanations that would narrow God’s domain.

          As the human knowledge base expands and science gradually explains the nature of the universe, there becomes less and less room for God. Many religions accept that some of their dogma has been shown by science to be false. As their traditional domain becomes narrower and more constricted, they promote mysteries and miracles “that cannot be explained by science” in order to justify God’s existence. Looking for mysteries rather than seeking explanations is the opposite of the philosophic spirit.

Religious wasteland

          For atheists, religion is a wasteland because of its reliance on invalid methods. It is simply implausible that faith can be an acceptable method for arriving at truth and knowledge. So much energy and intellect have been devoted to religion over the ages. If God does not exist, this is truly a waste of scholarship. And even if God exists, only one religion can be the true interpretation of God. With or without God, the majority of religious philosophy must be false and a wasteland.

Philosophical method

          It is easy for atheists to summarily dismiss religion to the wasteland because of its flawed methodology. The “spirit of philosophy” is to question everything and to put all beliefs and ideas to the test. This is substantively different from religion’s reliance on faith. Philosophers seek valid methods for arriving at truth and knowledge.

          Traditionally, reason and logic are part of philosophic method. But while logical analysis can be used to discredit bad philosophy it is not absolute. There is a general feeling that much of philosophy’s subject matter dealing with meaning, values and knowledge falls outside the scope of logical analysis. This leaves it wide open for philosophers to develop and proceed with any approach or method they like. If logic and reason are not absolute then anything goes.

          Without a universally agreed upon method, philosophy is no better off than religion because it has no way to achieve its goal of discovering truth and knowledge. Philosophers are free to develop their own individual methods and approaches to philosophy. Critics who do not accept a writer’s methods are free to reject his work. A writer may dismiss criticism if he does not accept the critic’s approach. There is no mechanism to ever resolve anything.

Religion and philosophy

          A great many philosophers reject logic and scientific method and base their philosophy on spirituality and religious belief. As religion is a branch of philosophy, there is a huge body of works with methods and approaches unacceptable to atheists. At the same time, atheistic approaches to philosophy may be anathema to theistic philosophers. With no common ground, the only rational course of action for theists and atheists is often just to agree to disagree.

          The natural and social sciences have contentious subject matter and contradictory theories but there is always a core foundation that forms the basis of the discipline and most importantly a method for testing and assessing theories. Philosophy is unique in having no universally accepted core principles, no agreements on purpose or method, and in allowing incompatible philosophies to co-exist in the same discipline.

          The purpose and methods of religions are contrary to the “philosophical spirit” which is to question everything and put all ideas to the test. In calling themselves philosophy, which we associate with reason and rationality, religions attempt to give their beliefs greater prestige and credibility. This association of irrationality with reason greatly diminishes philosophy and reduces the credibility of the whole discipline. Theistic philosophers would vigorously resist any reformation of philosophic method, however, that might exclude them.

          Atheists and theists have profoundly different conceptions of the purpose and method of philosophy and disagree on the most basic factual premises. Nevertheless, they do battle and vie for recognition and acceptance by the meaning-hungry masses. They criticize and refute one another and engage in endless argument and debate. But it is a war of attrition where no resolution is possible because there is no agreement on methodology. Each side wins converts but these are fortuitous and not the result of any philosophical method. More and more people, weary from all the futile debate, become cynical and turn their backs on philosophy. As long as philosophy is unable to exclude religion by any rational method, it will remain a wasteland.

Religious and atheistic co-existence

          How can religious and atheistic philosophers, perhaps not sharing a single belief or common purpose, co-exist in a discipline where they cannot communicate or debate meaningfully with one another? In the past, the natural and social sciences broke from philosophy, established their own goals and methods, and formed separate disciplines. Why have atheism and theism not gone their separate ways? How can atheists remain in a discipline where reliance on faith is an acceptable method?

          A split has not occurred because there are innumerable other cleavages in philosophy. Philosophers have profound disagreements in matters unrelated to atheism and religion. There are religious and atheistic existentialists as well as theists and atheists who are bitterly opposed to existentialism. There are religious Marxists and atheistic capitalists. Thus, in some battles theists and atheists are surprised to find themselves thrown together as allies. In fact, there are so many competing theories, beliefs, ideologies, and methodologies that are opposed on other than religious grounds that the idea of a religious schism in philosophy is not an issue at all. Philosophers are content to create their own schools of philosophy rather than break completely and form separate disciplines. They question one another’s methods but remain loyal to philosophy.

          Oddly enough, the lack of a universal method is what holds contemporary philosophy together. If there were a definitive, rational way of discussing and resolving philosophical issues, then it would be untenable for so many incompatible philosophies to co-exist in the same discipline. Religion and atheism would be forced to form distinct disciplines with their own goals and methods.

The stylistic wasteland

          Although philosophers do not agree on methods, there is general consensus on how theories and ideas should be presented. This has been referred to above as the “rules and customs of the great conversation” and as “philosophical usage”. The great conversation is a pragmatic approach to philosophy. By shifting the emphasis from method to style, it provides a forum in which philosophers of all persuasions can present their ideas and theories. In practice, if a work conforms to the rules and customs of the great conversation, it will be accepted as philosophy. Not all philosophers will accept the thesis but most will consider it to be worthy of serious philosophical discussion.

          The thesis of this section is that the prevalent approach to philosophy, based on the idea of “rules and customs of the great conversation” or “philosophical usage” as opposed to method, is unsound and leads to poor exposition.

Synchronic/diachronic dichotomy

          Let us take a closer look at philosophical exposition. I will use an analogy with the field of linguistics and borrow two of their terms. This is the only terminology introduced in this book. “Synchronic” means literally “at one time”. “Diachronic” means “at two or more times”.

          Early linguistics was mostly diachronic in that it studied languages from historical and comparative perspectives: their evolution, etymology, differences, and similarities. Modern linguistics began when the emphasis was shifted to a synchronic approach: the study of one specific language at a specific time and for a specific group of speakers. Linguists discovered it was possible, with no prior knowledge of a language or its history, to study a group of speakers and succeed in giving a perfect account of the structure of the language, its phonetics, vocabulary, grammar and usage. The history of the language was no doubt fascinating but was not essential for understanding the mechanics of the language as spoken by a particular speech group. More often than not the diachronic, historical approach only confused our understanding by introducing superfluous data. This unnecessary information, while not necessarily erroneous, clutters up the database. The switch to a synchronic approach revolutionized linguistics and made it into a science.

          Philosophy is not a science but it does suffer from the same weakness of early linguistics: an overemphasis on diachronic approaches. The whole idea of the great conversation – philosophy that transcends time – is diachronic. Readers and writers have been conditioned to accept theories presented in a historical and comparative perspective. Writer must show where their ideas fit in the scheme of the great conversation and address other philosophers, past and present, who have written on the subject. When a theory is presented in the “philosophically correct” diachronic format, it appears more compelling, even if the allusions and references are not essential to the theory.

          To understand better the distinction between synchronic and diachronic, consider this analogy. Assume that you have just walked in on a chess game well in progress. You could proceed to study the game diachronically: the sequence of moves that led to the present position, the players themselves, their strengths and weaknesses, their psychological profiles and physical health, and how much time is left on the clocks. Or, you could study the game synchronically considering only the position as you find it and whose turn it is to move. From this alone you can come to a perfect understanding of the position and all its implications. Diachronic information about the moves that led to this position may be fascinating but is superfluous and will not provide a better understanding of the game.

          The same holds true for philosophy. Any theory or idea can be presented synchronically by stating its premises, arguments, and conclusions. Any other diachronic information that is included, for example, how you are expanding on the work of this philosopher, how you disagree with that philosopher, or how what you are saying fits in with philosophical tradition may be fascinating but is totally irrelevant to the thesis. Including this type of information makes the thesis appear more rigorous but it can also weaken and overshadow the essential premises and arguments. Readers must struggle to discover and separate the actual synchronic premises and conclusions from all the diachronic baggage and their understanding may suffer.

          Philosophers have traditionally chosen the diachronic approach. When presenting theories, they create a historical perspective. They present the etymology of their theories and generally strive to be as diachronically rigorous as possible by addressing and alluding to previous and contemporary philosophers who have dealt with the subject. As a result, philosophical writings become an elaborate context in which the thesis is often deeply hidden. For non-academics, this can be frustrating.

          There are dangers in using a diachronic approach. Whenever writers quote or allude to other works they take a risk. Perhaps readers do not agree with the quote, fail to see its relevance, or are not familiar with the philosopher or work alluded to. This can only weaken their understanding and readiness to accept the thesis. Even if readers see insight in the diachronic allusions, this still does not in any way prove, strengthen, or justify the writer's thesis. Diachronic allusions are poor substitutes for a simple synchronic explanation of a thesis.

          Readers may have the reverse problem. They may accept a writer's thesis while disagreeing completely with the diachronic defense of it. For atheists this is a particularly common dilemma. Many theistic philosophers write about topics of interest to the atheist. Often the ideas are particularly good, but are accompanied by so many religious premises that atheists are left confused. How do they separate possible great ideas from religious baggage that may be irrelevant to the thesis? Should they reject the thesis because the diachronic premises are unsound or accept it realizing that the thesis can stand without them?

          Sometimes the presentation of a thesis is so diachronic that the actual synchronic premises are absent. Writers often assume that readers share their assumptions. When addressing only a limited audience this may be fine but in these heterogeneous times it is dangerous to assume that there are any fundamental premises to which everyone would agree. Philosophers addressing the public at large should be careful to state their essential initial assumptions.

Bias against simplicity

          Many people believe that brevity is a virtue and that the strongest arguments are the most concise, but in philosophy this is not necessarily the case. An obvious thesis is the easiest to refute. When premises are not obvious and when arguments are convoluted and complex, it is more difficult to refute a theory. Arguments that are long, complex, and even confused are often irrefutable just because readers cannot understand or agree on what the philosopher is trying to say. Philosophers will argue among themselves over what their colleague really meant and spend less time examining his ideas critically. A great many philosophical writings are interpretations and explanations of previous works. This suggests that philosophers are not communicating their ideas clearly and unambiguously.

          There is a philosophical prejudice against brevity and conciseness and a sense that a thesis that is simple and obvious cannot be profound. Philosophic tradition requires that philosophers strive for complexity and diachronic rigor. Theories expressed in a diachronic style will be accepted as philosophy and receive attention and discussion. Readers who struggle through all the diachronic baggage only to find they disagree with the thesis will still end by respecting the philosopher. Despite the bad ideas, the style confirms the writer is a part of the great conversation and worthy of serious consideration. Simple has become a pejorative term. The philosopher who proposes a simple idea in simple terms may end by being thought a simpleton. As a result, philosophical writing is historically complex, abstruse, diachronic, and, in short, a stylistic wasteland.

Historical philosophy

          The great conversation promotes the fallacy that no work can be fully understood outside of its historical context. For example, to understand Sartre we must first be familiar with Nietzsche. But to understand Nietzsche we must first be familiar with Hegel and Kant and Kierkegaard. Such reasoning is absurd and would lead to an infinite chain all the way back to the first philosopher and the first idea. By this reasoning we could never fully understand any work.

          In this spirit, philosophers love to allude and refer to one another. Philosophical literature teems with references to other philosophers. This name-dropping does little to advance a thesis and creates unnecessary barriers that excludes the layman from philosophy. Instead of expressing an idea synchronically, most philosophers take pains to show how their ideas fit in with the philosophical tradition. An idea without a pedigree will not do. The reader, who might have easily understood the writer's idea, will be lost because the idea was not actually expressed or the terminology was not explained. Writers naively assume that allusion to another philosopher or work sufficiently expresses their idea. This is inferior to a simple synchronic explanation.  

          Teachers sometimes give their students a quota of footnotes they must use in their papers in order to teach them how to be rigorous. This indoctrination into philosophy is based on the premise that rigor is important and that one acquires it by quoting and referring to others. This is the accepted method of the great conversation. Most philosophy includes critiques and comments on the writings of other philosophers. There is nothing wrong with these works. In fact, The Atheist's Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland is to some extent such a work. But the wasteland looms when this kind of philosophy dominates. Are there so few ideas that philosophers are reduced to referring back and forth to one another, endlessly rehashing the same old ideas? There is something sickly about the great conversation where such works reproduce, multiply and clutter.

Tyranny of the “Great Conversation”

          The great conversation is a tyranny. Philosophers must write within its style and traditions to be accepted by the philosophical community. A sense of philosophical correctness compels philosophers to adopt diachronic writing styles. If philosophers do not follow the rules, their writings will be ignored. This is a tyranny for students of philosophy as well. It makes it difficult to understand a particular work unless they are familiar with the great conversation. They cannot just pick up and read a philosophical work because they will be left lost and confused by references and allusions to other works. Philosophy excludes those who are unfamiliar with the great conversation and those who refuse to obey its rules and customs.

          If students of philosophy do manage to get past the countless allusions to unfamiliar theories and philosophers, they still must come to terms with philosophy's daunting terminology, jargon, and unnecessarily complex writing styles. Many of philosophy's classic works are confused, overly complex, and stylistically flawed but remain standard reading. The content could often be rewritten in a simpler, more synchronic style but this is not done because the rules and customs of the great conversation require that tradition be respected. It is unthinkable to ignore the original philosopher or his terminology. It is a sacrifice of intellectual integrity to use a secondary rather than an original source. This bias results from placing a greater emphasis on the thinker than on the ideas and is an example of the “cult of the philosopher”.

Cult of the philosopher

          The great conversation’s emphasis on the philosopher rather than the philosophy results in a “cult of the philosopher”. This has several manifestations. Writers often allude to great names in support of their theses. These allusions are usually diachronic but are included because this is the accepted practice in the great conversation and they establish and strengthen the writer’s credibility.

          Many analyses of philosophical works have chapters devoted to a philosopher's life in order to explain what he really meant. This entails the idea that a rigorous biographical analysis of a philosopher can help to interpret and explain his philosophy. Writers of such works are biographers and psychologists, but not philosophers. Analysis of a work may help explain the psychology of its author but the reverse is not true. If it is necessary to return to the author or his other writings to discover the thesis, then the thesis must be poorly presented or confused. Many writers refuse to accept this and resort to all sorts of diachronic methods in vain attempts to clarify what the author really meant to say. Caught up in by the cult of the philosopher, they refuse to accept that the work may simply be a stylistic wasteland.

          Philosophical writings are nothing more than tools to assist readers in forming their own opinions. If a work is confused and poorly written and the thesis is not apparent, then it should be abandoned. Rather than use diachronic means to extrapolate what a writer really meant, readers are wiser to examine their own thoughts on the subject. There is a subtle distinction between doing philosophy and doing a literary or biographical analysis. A literary or biographical analysis would focus on accurately discovering the philosopher’s beliefs, intentions, and thesis. A philosophical analysis examines the arguments and ideas evoked by the writing. For this, the reader’s opinions are more important than the philosopher intentions. We can avoid the cult of the philosopher by remembering that philosophers are not sacred and by viewing philosophical writings as simple tools to aid in forming our own opinions.

Philosophy and science

          Consider for a moment the differences between science and philosophy. The development and acceptance of scientific method made it possible to sweep away superstitions and nonsense of the pre-scientific wasteland. Such a revolution has yet to occur in philosophy. Most scientific and technical writing is synchronic. It would be considered strange to include biographical data on the scientist or extensive information about the evolution of a theory in a scientific paper. Unnecessary diachronic references are considered out of place. In science today, it is the theory that matters, not the thinker. Science has its Newtons and Einsteins who are remembered for the vastness of their discoveries but now, with the incredible speed of scientific advance and technological progress, scientists have become nameless. There is little mystique about the scientists themselves. Only their ideas, theories, and discoveries matter. This is healthy. It is not the person which gives a theory credibility, but the ideas. There is no cult of the scientist.

          Now look at philosophy. In theory, philosophy is opposed to psychological biases implied by the cult of the philosopher. Every philosopher and every theory is open to refute. Everything is questionable. But look at the everyday practice in the great conversation. To divorce an idea or theory from the thinker is almost unheard of. The normal procedure for expressing a thesis is to refer first to previous thinkers and then adds one's own thoughts and critiques. First create a diachronic context, and then proceed.

          There is no denying that science and philosophy are very different. Unlike science, philosophy has few, if any, generally accepted truths or laws. All philosophers can toss around are ideas and theories, none of which are above dispute, and all of which must be footnoted. With their clearly defined method scientists are enviable. If they want to use the law of gravity, they do so. They do not have to footnote Newton or justify the validity of the law. It is simply part of the scientific canon. The philosopher deals only with ideas and it is felt important to identify their source so that credit or censure can be properly assessed. This clutters the philosophical arena with superfluous historical and biographical references and creates a stylistic wasteland. Philosophy is not a science, but there is something dubious about a discipline that can only appear credible when cloaked in diachronic garments. The idea here is not to avoid footnoting other’s ideas; rather, most allusions are diachronic and irrelevant and need not be made in the first place.

Synchronic challenge

          If the philosopher’s purpose is to establish truths and discover knowledge then the goal of his writings should be to communicate his findings. Many philosophical works seem impenetrable nightmares designed expressly to thwart easy understanding. The criteria of The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland for judging writing style is to determine how well it succeeds in communicating the author's ideas and theories. Philosophy does not have to be abstruse or esoteric to be profound. We do not have to exclude the curious from the realm of philosophical inquiry. Philosophical writing does not have to be a stylistic wasteland.

          Any idea, concept or theory, no matter how complex, can be expressed in simple, synchronic terms. It is not unsound to include diachronic comments but they are best kept to a minimum. They may provide interesting background but it should be clear that they are not an integral part of the argument. The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland proposes the synchronic challenge. Most works contain a large diachronic element. Readers, however, when presented with a synchronic summary of any work, can come to a perfect understanding of the ideas, arguments, and general thesis in it. They may not be familiar with the analogies, vocabulary, and terminology of the original work but this information is diachronic to the actual ideas.

          The act of summarizing and simplifying is a selective process. Diachronic allusions can be eliminated and simpler terminology can be introduced if the original language is confusing. The actual ideas and arguments of lengthy works may fill only a couple pages when separated from all the diachronic baggage. The result may bear little resemblance to the original but, if done properly, could give readers a perfect and even clearer understanding of the original thesis.

Beyond the philosophical wasteland

          The fatal flaw of philosophy is that it has no objective criteria for rejecting. In order to escape the wasteland, there has to be some way to exclude bad philosophy. Logic and reason help, but are not absolute. The rules and customs of the great conversation or philosophical usage provide a process for presenting philosophical ideas but no universal method for evaluating them and resolving philosophical issues. There is so much disagreement on the most elementary questions of method that philosophers often cannot communicate or debate meaningfully with one another. Philosophy is a discipline without discipline. The diachronic approach masquerades as a method but is philosophically unsound and is, in fact, a major cause of the wasteland.

          It is tempting to abandon philosophy as a huge wasteland full of thousands of contradictory and incompatible theories. Nevertheless, it is still a tremendous source of ideas for those who search for philosophical meaning. Those who do not mind picking and poking among the debris may gain some valuable insights. The thesis of this book is not that philosophy has to be wasteland, but rather that the discipline as it exists today is a wasteland.

Methodology of this book

          Before diving further into our study of atheism, a few words on the methods of this book. The thesis is that philosophy has no discipline and that its authority comes more from history and tradition than from method. The goal is to clear away as much of the wasteland as possible.

Style as method

          On a stylistic level there is room for much improvement in philosophy. Philosophical writing is often abstruse, overly complex, full of jargon and references to other works, and for the most part is not conducive to easy understanding. This is the result of an emphasis on diachronic rather than synchronic analysis. We will assume that a philosopher's goal in writing is to communicate his ideas and to convince with justification. Communication is the goal and style is a means to this end. Unless a writer specifically implies otherwise, style will be judged according to how well it succeeds in communicating the thesis. Priority will be given to a synchronic approach that uses simple, concise writing, clearly presented premises, arguments, and conclusions, and minimal use of diachronic asides.

Synchronic weapon

          The synchronic/diachronic dichotomy, the separation of an analysis into essential and nonessential components, will be especially useful. The label “diachronic” becomes a lethal weapon. We can point it at elements of a work and proclaim, “This is diachronic and unnecessary.” It is a powerful weapon for doing battle with the wasteland. With it, we can sweep away the irrelevant and see if anything remains.

          The distinction between synchronic and diachronic should become more apparent as we go along. It will be especially important in the analyses of Marx, Rand, Sartre, and Nietzsche that follow. When analyzing a thesis, synchronic refers only to the premises assumed, the logical steps of the arguments, and the conclusions derived from these. Diachronic refers to everything else that may accompany a thesis but which is not essential.

          This book is not missionary. It does do matter if the reader accepts or rejects atheism. Instead, I want to proceed beyond the premise of atheism, to discover its ultimate implications, to communicate my findings, and to justify my conclusions. I do not revel in the wasteland and rejoice at being a part of a closed fraternity. I do not want to exclude the uninitiated from philosophy. My goal is to sweep away the wasteland wherever possible and to see if anything remains. To this end the synchronic approach will be my ideal.

 

Atheism

          In western philosophy there are thousands of years of Christian and other theistic writings but relatively few works that start with the premise of atheism. The vast sea of religious philosophy often leaves atheists perplexed. How do they approach works whose initial premise is unacceptable? Furthermore, atheistic writings often go no further than attempts to disprove the existence of God. The goal of The Atheist's Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland is to discover atheism's ultimate philosophical implications. It is irrelevant whether God actually exists. We will assume that God does not exist as a starting premise to see what conclusions logically follow. Those who do not accept the premise of atheism are in no way obliged to accept these conclusions.

          All arguments have an infinite number of premises and it would be impossible to defend them all. For example, most arguments assume the use of everyday English language, the validity of logic, that we exist, and that the world exists. Writers do not explain each word they use, each rule of grammar or logic they employ, nor do they start by trying to prove that the world exists. These are usually part of their initial unstated premises. Philosophers could get into endless debate on any of these but this would in no way advance their theses. Philosophers must be selective. They must decide which premises to assume without justifying. A premise is a hypothetical philosophical leap. By definition, a premise is something assumed to be true. We ignore for the moment any controversy as to its truth or falsity in order to proceed to an analysis of its philosophical implications.

          Our starting point is the premise of atheism. This is simply the rejection of God and all religious, mystical and supernatural explications of existence. There is no attempt to prove or justify atheism. Volumes could be written in defense of atheism but this would not advance our analysis of its implications. In assuming atheism, we sidestep for the moment controversial question about the existence or non-existence of God and proceed directly to its implications. Let us see where the premise of atheism takes us.

If God does not exist then….

There is no life after death

          There is no empirical evidence to suggest the contrary. Science indicates that death is the end of life for all living organisms. A body may decompose into other living matter but the mind ceases to exist. If one disallows any supernatural or religious explanations then one can only conclude that there is no immortality or life after death.

There is no divine purpose or meaning to life

          Without God there can be no divine. The rejection of God negates the possibility of there being any divine purpose or meaning to life.

There is no absolute, objective purpose to life

          The rejection of God implies that there is no intrinsic purpose to life, valid for all, just waiting to be discovered. Without God, where could this come from?

Existence is ultimately meaningless

          This is a reformulation of the previous conclusion. Purpose and meaning are intricately linked. Without purpose there can be no meaning. People exist without any absolute or divine reason for their existence. They invent reasons for their existence but these are personal and arbitrary. We exist for a while and then we cease to exist. We are biologically programmed to reproduce and to survive as long as possible but this does not give any objective reason or purpose for our existence. Existence without purpose is meaningless.

The meaninglessness of existence is not a philosophical problem

          The apparent meaninglessness of existence is often viewed as a grave problem for which philosophy must find a solution. People want life to have meaning and are extremely dissatisfied when presented with evidence to the contrary. The meaninglessness of existence, however, is a simple factual conclusion. A factual conclusion is either true or false. It has no value content. Either existence has meaning or it does not, but in neither case is it a problem. To view a factual conclusion as a problem to be overcome is philosophically unsound. Refusal to accept a compelling factual conclusion because it is distasteful can only bias further analysis.

There are no objective or absolute values

          Objective values refer to values that exist independently in the world and which are not merely created by people. Without God or other supernatural explanations, where could objective or absolute values come from? Who would be the authority?

          The meaninglessness of existence implies that absolute values are not possible. For values to exist, there must be a purpose. By definition, that which furthers a purpose is a positive value. That which hinders a purpose is a negative value. Without purpose or meaning there can be no values. The absence of any objective purpose to life means that there can be no objective values.

Reason and logic are limited and cannot justify meaning, purpose, or values

          As a means to truth, logic is supreme. Its laws can be shown to be mathematically valid. Given premises, logic can derive conclusions such that if the premises are true the conclusions must also be true. Logic cannot, however, provide initial premises. And without initial premises, logic cannot proceed.

          This is the case when we consider values and morality. If there were an ultimate value, one that everyone accepted and agreed on, then derivative values and perhaps a systematic, universal morality could be deduced. But reason and logic cannot provide initial values. And without an initial value, no further values or morality can be derived. Reason and logic cannot justify any purpose or meaning we give to life because there is no objective, initial premise from which a justification could be derived.

Values are ultimately a matter of taste

          Reason and logic cannot justify values. Since objective values are not possible, all values must be subjective, arbitrary and a matter of individual taste. When evaluating values, the best we can do is to say that a value is or is not to our taste.

There is no universal, objective morality

          An objective morality cannot be based on relative or subjective values. For there to be an objective morality, there must be at least one objective value from which other values can be derived. Objective values, however, are impossible. This means there can never be a universal morality that all rational people would be compelled to accept.

Human life is not sacred

          If sacred means “dear to God” then the statement, “Human life is sacred” is meaningless to atheists. If “sacred” refers to things that have objective value, this is also impossible as we have already concluded that objective values cannot exist without God. If God does not exist, on what grounds can man consider himself to be an absolute value? If existence is meaningless, then all life, human included, is meaningless and cannot have any intrinsic, objective value. Those who value human life above all else are merely expressing a personal value. Nothing is sacred.

No value is inherently superior to another value

          Some values appear better than others. Honesty seems superior to untruthfulness. Altruism seems better than egoism. But all values are a matter of taste, and this means they are all equally subjective and unjustifiable. There are no philosophical grounds for concluding one value is superior to another. Values are not good or bad. They are either to your taste or not to your taste. You may not accept someone's values but you cannot show they are false, illogical, or inherently bad. At best, you might show that someone's values are contradictory and inconsistent with each other.

Justification of values is not necessary

          A value, like any other taste, is personal and subjective and defies rational justification. There is nothing wrong in adopting values but it is unsound to try to justify a taste by reason. Justification of values is not necessary.

Meaning and purpose are possible

          Meaning, purpose, and values are intricately linked. There is no objective purpose or meaning to life. Any purpose or meaning we give to our lives is subjective and arbitrary. This means that purpose is essentially a taste, and as we have seen, tastes cannot be justified by reason. We can, however, choose a personal purpose and meaning for our lives in the same way we choose values without the need for justification.

Facts are facts and values are values

          It is unsound to make value judgments about factual premises. For example, the meaninglessness of life is a fact, not a problem. It is neither good nor bad. Similarly, atheism is a factual premise. It is either true or false. Either God exists or He does not. Philosophically, it is neither good nor bad that God does not exist.

          There is a difference between factual and value premises. Acceptance of atheism is a philosophical leap of faith. There are many convincing arguments that show it is unlikely for God to exist but none that completely disprove his existence. Agnosticism would be more prudent, but less compelling. Atheists reject God, not because it is to their taste, but because they find it the most compelling explanation. They reject God not because God is bad but because God is not a plausible factual premise.

          In choosing a value premise, however, a person is not deciding between truth and falsehood. A value is neither true nor false. It is merely something a person decides is important in his life. Values cannot be refuted by reason. Values are subjective and any attempt to give them an objective status is unwarranted. A taste has no factual content.

Once value premises are chosen, logic and reason can be applied

          Logic is a tool for manipulating premises. It cannot create premises. Starting from a basic value premise, persons could use logic to derive secondary and tertiary values and produce a system of values or morality.

          A derived value can be examined in two ways. It can be evaluated as a value premise in which case we determine whether or not it is to our taste. But because it has been derived by logic from another premise, we can also analyze it to determine whether it actually follows from the initial value premise and whether it is consistent with other derived values. A logical analysis of values can determine their hierarchy of importance and whether they are consistent with one another but not whether a particular value is good or bad.

Ethics is a wasteland

          Ethics as a search for correct values is unsound because there are no correct values. The most that ethics can achieve is commentary on tastes. Failure to accept this leads to absurd ethical debates because reason and logic cannot resolve disputes over matters of taste. Ethical debaters who believe they can convince others of the superiority of their values are engaged in a futile endeavor. Tastes cannot be justified. No value can be proven superior to another.

          Intelligent ethical discussion is possible on a certain level. There is no basis for logical ethical debate when there is no agreement on initial values. But if persons agree on initial value premises, rational debate can follow about derivative values. For example, a philosopher can state the value premises that support his thesis and invite others to accept these premises, not by force of logic, but simply as a matter of shared taste. If the invitation is accepted, then the philosopher can use logical arguments leading to further conclusions. If a person declines the invitation, then there can be no further grounds for rational discussion. This greatly limits the scope of ethical debate.

It is not unsound to use values as a basis for judging and criticizing

          There is no logical reason why a person should adopt values but nor is there any reason to abstain from having values. Logic is indifferent. The relativity of values does not mean that we are forever trapped in a moral limbo where we can never make value judgments about anything. Once people adopt some values, and it is not irrational to do so, they will be compelled to view the world from the perspective of their values. They will call some things good and others bad. Others who do not share the same values will not necessarily accept these judgments. Value judgments are perfectly acceptable but we should remember they are subjective matters of personal taste and that other people can rationally hold different values.

Personal morality is possible

          There is no objective reason why anyone should strive to be moral. But nor is there anything to prevent persons from adopting values to their taste and creating a moral code for themselves. If they have a consistent hierarchy of values, they can use reason and logic to rationally decide any moral question in accordance with their value premises. Those who do not accept these value premises would be under no compulsion to accept their moral code. Personal morality is possible but only based on subjective, non-absolute values.

Knowledge defined as certainty is not possible

          We can never know anything about the world beyond all doubt because our sense perceptions are suspect. There is always the possibility of them deceiving us. If there is no God to give us knowledge, for example, through revelation or religious scriptures, then certainty is impossible. Practical knowledge is the best we can do. In practical terms, human knowledge often approaches but never quite reaches certainty.

Truth and knowledge are ultimately meaningless

          Existence is meaningless, but people still live as if their lives had great purpose. In a meaningless world most people cling to some delusion of meaning. Love, power, wealth, the good of society, art, happiness, fame, and God are some ideals by which people choose to live their lives. Truth and knowledge are the philosopher's delusions.

          Philosophers debate whether truth and knowledge are possible, but seldom do they question their soundness as ideals. Truth and knowledge have no more justification than any other value. If existence is meaningless, what can truth matter? What use is more knowledge? As a means to an end, they are useful. If one has a goal they can be very helpful in achieving it. But without a purpose, truth and knowledge are ultimately meaningless. They seem crucially important to the philosopher but in the great non-scheme of existence there is no compelling reason why they should matter.

If there is no god, then anything goes

          This is a common challenge to atheism, but it is essentially correct. The absence of God means that people are free to choose whatever values, meaning, and purpose they wish and to act as they like. “Anything goes”, however, implies that with no God ruling over us, anarchy, chaos, and a state of war would exist. Without restraint, people would make the world a living hell.

          The response to this is simply that God does not exist and that most societies still function reasonably well. Societies are workable, not because they are founded on some divine or absolute morality, but because there is a general consensus on certain values. These translate into the laws and customs of a particular society. Not everyone will consent to live by these laws and as a result states use force to uphold their laws. Individuals can commit acts which harm society but the state can limit the freedom of people who exhibit unsociable or destructive behavior. Usually a workable equilibrium is reached. People find it in the best interest of whatever values they hold dear to cooperate with other people. If they were not willing to compromise, then society would be unworkable. As this equilibrium is always founded on fear and force, it is not incorrect to say that we do essentially live in a state of war. Without God, anything goes, but usually this does not lead to anarchy, social chaos and destruction.

          In the realm of international relations, might often makes right. Most countries live together peacefully because it is in their interests to do so. But when disputes occur, force is the ultimate arbiter and anything goes.

 

Summary of atheism conclusions

If God does not exist then:

1.     There is no life after death.

2.     There is no divine purpose or meaning to life.

3.     There is no absolute, objective purpose to life.

4.     Existence is ultimately meaningless.

5.     The meaninglessness of existence is not a philosophical problem.

6.     There are no universal, objective values.

7.     Reason and logic are limited and cannot justify meaning, purpose, or values.

8.     Values are ultimately a matter of taste.

9.     There is no universal, objective morality.

10. Human life is not sacred.

11. No value is inherently superior to another value.

12. Justification of values is not necessary.

13. Meaning and purpose are possible. Justification is unnecessary.

14. Facts are facts and values are values.

15. Once value premises are chosen, logic and reason can by applied.

16. Ethics is a wasteland.

17. It is not unsound to use values as a basis for judging and criticizing.

18. Personal morality is possible.

19. Knowledge defined as certainty is not possible.

20. Truth and knowledge are ultimately meaningless.

21. If there is no god, then anything goes.

 

Conclusions on atheism

          The preceding atheistic conclusions are all factual premises in that they are either true or false. They have no value content. Nevertheless, they paint a dark picture of what it means to be an atheist: existence without purpose or meaning; values which can only be subjective and arbitrary; and nothingness and the void as philosophy's ultimate revelation. Many might view this as a bleak, nihilistic conception of existence. The implications of atheism, however, are neither good nor bad. They are not to be rejoiced at nor lamented. They are only factual conclusions and should be accepted as such.

          Atheism is not a religion. It cannot tell us what values to choose or how to live our life. As there are no absolute values in life, everyone is free to choose how they will live and what they will value. Philosophy can give no concrete guidelines in this domain.

          Is life worth living? Or more specifically, is a meaningless life worth living? This is another question left unanswered. There is no philosophical reason why we exist but nor is there any reason why we should not exist. Readers are left to decide these existential questions for themselves. The personal values they choose will determine their response to existence.

          Atheism is not a monolithic philosophy. Atheists hold a variety of factual and value premises about the world. In the analysis above, the conclusion that there are no absolute values or intrinsic meaning to life follow from my definition of atheism. An atheism that rejects God and all mystical and supernatural explications of existence implies that there are no intrinsic values prescribed by God or inherent in the world just waiting to be discovered. This is the working premise of this book. Persons who adhere to softer forms of atheism or agnostism may disagree here. In particular, some atheists may not agree that there are no absolute or objective values in life. It is not the intention of this book, however, to debate this issue. Rather, the atheistic conclusions listed above are intended to serve as working premises throughout the remainder of this book.

 

Introduction to the Synchronic Approach

Case studies of atheistic philosophies

          In the next four chapters the philosophies of four atheistic writers will be considered: the communism of Karl Marx, the objectivism of Ayn Rand, the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. The goal is not a rigorous and exhaustive study of these writers but rather to develop a critical way to approach philosophical works in general.

          An important factor in philosophical analysis is to know how to be critical. Those who have no criteria for accepting or rejecting beliefs and values will never progress philosophically. Critical thinkers have three powers of rejection at their disposal: logic (for arguments), implausibility (for factual premises), and taste (for value premises). They can dismiss to the wasteland any thesis whose logic is unsound, whose factual premises are not plausible, or whose values are not to their taste. Philosophers need all three of these critical powers. Without them, philosophy is a futile endeavor where nothing can ever be resolved.

          Logic reveals contradictions and allows us to reject unsound arguments. Scientific method allows us to test and reject implausible factual premises. Science does not produce absolute facts or result in objective knowledge. Instead it provides working theories and hypotheses that can be relied on as long as they do not produce contradictions. Logic and scientific method can say little, however, about value premises. The atheist may accept or reject value premises according to his taste. He is luckier than theists who, believing in absolute or divine values, may not have the same freedom to dismiss values on the basis of taste.

          There are so many theories and philosophies vying for our attention that an approach that quickly allows us to evaluate and reject a thesis is helpful. For example, by rejecting works with implausible religious premises we can relegate an incredible number of philosophical works to the wasteland. Imagine. So much of philosophy wiped away in one fell swoop! Or if a person rejects the value premises of a philosophy such as Marxism, that philosophy could also be relegated to the wasteland.

          This would not totally absolve persons from studying Marxist or religious philosophy. They may still need to be familiar with them if they want to participate fully in and understand the great conversation. Furthermore, religion and Marxism merit study because of the tremendous historical, political, and social impact they have had on the world. Any such study of the impact of a philosophy, however, is by definition diachronic and falls not in the domain of philosophy, but of history, political science, or sociology.

          How does a reader approach a work of philosophy methodically? The synchronic approach is proposed. This consists simply in searching out the crucial premises and arguments of a thesis and ignoring everything else that is not essential. The studies of the four atheistic philosophers that follow have two purposes. They further our analysis of atheism, the central theme of this book, and they serve as case studies showing how synchronic analysis works in practice.

          The starting point for analyzing any work dealing with ethical, political, or social philosophy is to determine its value premises. These may be explicitly stated or implied. Sometimes they are not obvious. Philosophical studies that proceed straight to factual premises without considering value premises are problematic. They provide all sorts of arguments and data, but with no mention of the underlying value premises we are left with no criteria for accepting or rejecting the thesis. It is essential to discover them and determine whether they are essential to the thesis because only then will there exist a rational basis for analyzing the work.

          A quick first look at value premises reveals whether there are grounds for further investigation. This allows us to avoid becoming embroiled in the deeper intricacies and complexities of a thesis with unacceptable value premises. Examination of value premises ultimately comes down to taste. If the value premises supporting a thesis are not to the reader’s taste, then further analysis of the work may be pointless.

          The second step in a philosophical analysis is to determine the factual premises. These again may be explicitly stated or implied. They may be assumed as premises or justified by arguments. We will look at them with a critical eye to determine whether they are plausible and whether they are essential and synchronic to the thesis.

          This is the synchronic approach in a nutshell: determine the value and factual premises and then examine the reasoning and conclusions. This will be our method in the analysis of the atheistic philosophies that follow.

 

Communism

          Marxism includes many things: an analysis of history and economics, critiques of capitalism, accounts of social injustice, calls to revolution, and the goal of creating a communist society. In this chapter we will look at the Marxist ideal of a future communist society and ignore other aspects of Marxism not directly related to communist theory. By way of introduction, let us look at what a communist society would be like. What does communism propose as an ideal?

          To start with, everyone is equal. Inequality has been eliminated. Private property and money are not allowed because they make people unequal and create alienation. Everyone works and receives equal pay or something in line with the Marxist motto, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. Society is industrial and the workers are productive. There is no unemployment. There are no factory owners or bosses. Instead, the workers manage their work places themselves and control the means of production. The wealth is distributed equally among the population.

           There is no crime because there is no motive for crime. People have all they need. Without private property and money, there is nothing to steal. There is no need for police, lawyers, courts, and prisons and these no longer exist. In fact, there is no need for laws. People live in harmony with one another and do not need rules to be imposed on them. A government is unnecessary and governmental bureaucracy has slowly withered away and now almost ceases to exist. Even an army is all but unnecessary because a communist state has no aggressive intentions against its brother states. Most of the countries in the world have become communist and live in peace with one another.

          Communist states are prosperous because every individual is actively engaged in productive labor. The elimination of government, bureaucracy, police, courts, prisons, and the military frees a tremendous number of people from non-productive jobs. Industry is efficient because everything is centrally planned and there is no wasteful duplication which results from competition and unplanned economies.

          People are well adjusted and have plenty of free time to develop their personal potential. Religion has all but disappeared because people no longer feel the need for promises of happiness in the next world. They are happy in this one.

          Citizens in a communist state have true freedom: freedom from want, fear, exploitation, and inequality. They live in the world's first truly moral society.

          This vision of a happy, well-adjusted, prosperous, peace-loving society is appealing, but before making any judgments, we will take a closer look at communism's value premises. These values are not explicitly stated. In order to discover them, we must look at communism's goals and objectives. By definition, that which is a goal is a value. Any purpose or end that people strive to achieve must be a value.

Communist values

The following are values implied by this Marxist vision of the ideal communist state.

The good of society

          The goal of communism is to create the ideal society. It is implied that all measures taken to achieve this goal are done for “the good of society”. The good of society is the justification for communism and is communism's ultimate value.

Social equality

          Communism's goal is for all men to be socially equal. Inequality creates resentment and alienation. It perverts human nature, makes people unhappy, and society suffers because of it.

Economic equality

          The equal distribution of wealth is a primary goal of communism. Once economic inequality has been eliminated there can be no social inequality. Economic equality is a means for achieving social equality.

Material prosperity

          The communist society we have envisioned is very materialistic. There is a strong emphasis on the satisfaction of material needs as a means to make people happy. Communism is an economic system. The creation of wealth is a primary goal and is thus a value.

Peace

          Peace is a value and communism will achieve it by eliminating the causes of war and social strife.

Social harmony

          The alienation and resentment that result from economic inequality are the cause of all social disharmony. The goal of communism is to achieve social harmony by creating an environment where it impossible for people to be unequal.

The individual

          The creation of an environment (the communist state) where individuals can develop themselves to their fullest potential is a goal of communism.

Work

          Work is a very strong communist ideal. Work is a means to material prosperity but it is also an end in itself. Everyone works in a communist society. Work is not a duty but a right of every individual. Work is not something negative which everyone has to do, but something positive which everyone is entitled to do. Work is good for the human spirit.

Freedom

          People are free in a communist state because they have everything they need and have nothing to fear. They are free from want and from exploitation.

Atheism

          Religion is a symptom of people's alienation from society. People are unhappy with all the misery and suffering of an unjust world. Religion encourages them to accept their lot by promising that those who are good will find happiness in the next life. Marx asserts that we do not have to wait for the afterlife to live in an ideal world. We can create one right here on earth. Atheism is considered not only to be true, but also to be a value because it frees people from the belief that they can do nothing to improve the world. It encourages people to take action rather than to passively accept their lot in life.

Reason and rationality

          Reason is a value because it gives us the power to solve problems and improve our lives. For example, reason leads to communism. Rationality is a value because rational people will recognize the superiority of communism and work to achieve a communist state. Irrational people might resist communism.

Efficiency

          Communism is justified because it is more efficient at creating wealth and distributing it more equitably than any other system. Efficiency is thus a communist value.

Happiness

          One of the goals of an ideal society is to eliminate human suffering and thereby make people happy.

Analysis of communism’s value premises

          At this preliminary stage in our analysis, readers may have an idea whether communist values are to their taste. If they accept some but not all of these values, they will have to determine if the rejected values are essential to communism. If they reject essential values, they will not be able to accept communism no matter how compelling the rest of its factual premises and arguments may be. Values not implied by the communist ideal must also be considered. If readers hold strong values that are unimportant or negative to communism, they may have to reexamine their personal values to see whether they can be consistent with communism. A closer look at our list of communist value premises is in order.

Individual vs society

          Both the individual and society appear in our list as important values, but which takes precedence? Is the good of society ultimately a means to the good of the individual or is the fulfillment of the individual ultimately for the good of society? When the rights of an individual come into conflict with the good of society, communism will always choose for the good of society. Marx’s goal is to create a good society, not to protect individuals. Although the individual and society are both ideals, society is a much stronger value and always take precedence. As the individual can in theory be sacrificed for the good of society, it should be deleted from our list of core communist values.

Personal Freedom

          Freedom is said to be a communist value. But the Marxist conception of freedom is not conventional. Freedom usually relates to individual rights such as freedom of speech, of assembly, of association, of the press, and of religion. These are not communist values. In a communist society there would be no government, crime, wars, or scandal, so there would be little need for a free press. What would there be to write about? With no opposing political or philosophical opinions there would be little need to protect free speech, rights of assembly, association, or religion. This does not meant that individual rights and freedoms would be regularly violated, only that they are considered irrelevant and unnecessary.

          Marxist freedom is freedom from want, fear, exploitation, and inequality. The individual is free because he has no worries. He has everything he needs. This may be desirable but it is not the conventional definition of freedom. Because Marx redefines freedom to mean its opposite, we will strike it from our list of core communist values premises.

Hierarchy of values

          Now that we have slightly refined our list of communist values, the next step is to determine their hierarchy of importance. Which take precedence and which are derived from other value premises? Are they all synchronic values essential to communism or can communism stand without some of them? By answering these questions we can determine the significance of each value.

          Derived values are secondary values that logically follow from another value. Some communist values are derived. For example, economic equality is a means to social equality and is thus a derivative value. Social equality is a means to social harmony and so it too is a derived value. Social harmony and peace are ultimately for the good of society and are thus derived values. Work is a means to material prosperity and material prosperity is a means to happiness and social harmony. Work and material prosperity are thus both derived values. Atheism is good because it encourages people to strive for a better society and this is for the good of society. Atheism is thus a derived value.

          Whenever we choose values we are also choosing all their implications. The thesis here is that all the values in our revised list of communist values are derived from a single value: the good of society. Marx starts with the goal of creating the ideal society. Anything that promotes the creation of the ideal society is a value. That which hinders it is a vice.

           The good of society is the ultimate justification for communism. Communism is prescribed as the best political system because it results in a greater good for society than any other system. All conflicts will be resolved in favor of the value that results in the greatest good for society.

          This greatly simplifies the task of evaluating communist value premises. If readers accept the good of society as a first value, they do not have to decide whether other communist values are also to their taste, only whether they logically follow from the first value. Once a value is chosen, logic can be applied to derive and evaluate secondary values.

The communist vision

          Consider again our vision of the communist state. Is it a happy, affluent society where people do a few hours a day of socially productive labor and are then free to pursue the arts, exercise, entertain, educate, and enrich themselves as they see fit? Or is the communist state unbearably boring and tedious? People work, eat, dress well, and live quite comfortably but have lost their spirit. Work is boring. There is no reward for ability or achievement, and no outlet for ambition. And with peace and social order, nothing ever happens. There is no conflict or disharmony to inspire art. On television there are no cop shows, no lawyer shows, no war movies, and no mysteries. Without scandal, little is left to make art about. Life seems meaningless and without purpose. The elimination of conflict in our lives and the satisfaction of all material needs only makes the meaninglessness of existence all the more apparent.

          Which of the two above visions is more compelling? Readers will have to decide whether the vision of the ideal communist society is to their taste. The good of society is a subjective value that leads to utopia for some but to tedium and mediocrity for others.

          Once readers complete the subjective hurdle of deciding whether or not to accept communism's value premises, they can proceed to a deeper analysis. The next step is to examine communism's factual premises. These are premises that are either true or false but have no value content. The following are some of communism's factual premises.

Factual premises of communism

Human behavior is determined by environment

          Marx asserts that human nature is completely determined by a person's environment. This is known as social determinism. Anti-social behavior results when people feel alienated from society. If an environment is unnatural and unhealthy, people will also become unhealthy and exhibit perverse behavior. Crime and social unrest will result. In a more natural environment people would be happier and interact positively with one another. They would no longer feel alienated and social strife would disappear.

Economic inequality is the cause of people's alienation

          Economic inequality is the reason society is unjust and unnatural. People feel alienated because they are unequal. They see others who possess more or less than they do. They feel superior or inferior and this creates resentment. Human nature is perverted and people become alienated from one another.

To eliminate economic inequality, private property and money must be abolished

          Economic equality can be achieved by making it physically impossible for people to be unequal. The elimination of private property and money accomplishes this. Money and private property allow people to accumulate wealth. If these did not exist, there would be no way to become rich and no way for inequality to exist.

The wealth of a communist society will be distributed equally among all citizens

          In a communist society, people would have all their basic needs provided and everyone would receive an equal share of the wealth. But without the institutions of money and private property, most of the wealth of a society would be held in common. Society would control all property and individuals would be allowed to use, but not possess it.

Social harmony will result from the elimination of economic inequality

          Once economic inequality is eliminated, people will no longer feel like they are competing with one another. They will be freed from their alienation. People will no longer view others as superior or inferior but as fellow brothers. All possible motives for crime, strife, and conflict will have been eliminated and people will have no choice but to get along with one another. Social harmony will result.

Human nature is not fixed and is in fact perfectible

          When we look at the evil men do to each other it seems that human nature is seriously flawed. No matter how mankind progresses technologically and materially, there is no corresponding improvement in human nature. Marx asserts, however, that human nature is not fixed or innate. Rather, it is the product of a person's environment. To date, there has been no perfect society so human nature remains flawed. In fact, most social environments are so bad that it is not surprising how evil people can be. The creation of a communist state will change this. People living in a healthy environment will develop healthy natures. Human nature will be perfected and people will cease to do evil to each other.

Healthy people are altruistic

          People living in a healthy environment such as a communist society will place the good of society ahead of their own selfish interests. They will willingly sacrifice their own personal interests for the greater good of society. They recognize that it is better to do good for others than to think only of themselves. Human nature, when free from alienation, is altruistic.

People are essentially rational

          People are essentially rational and in the healthy environment of a communist society this will become apparent. If the opposite seems true, this is because unhealthy societies distort a person's rationality.

The communist state will be based on rational consent rather than force

          People will accept communism, not because someone holds a gun to their head, but because they are rational and accept the superiority of communism over any other system.

Atheism

          Marx asserts that there is no God.

Theism will whither away

          It is not necessary to coerce people into accepting atheism. In a communist society people will not feel alienated and will no longer need to invent religious explanations of existence. Religious belief will gradually disappear as rational people living in a communist state recognize that theism is illogical and unnecessary.

Efficiency

          Communism is more efficient than capitalism or any other system at creating wealth. It is the most productive economic system because industry is based on planning and cooperation rather than on competition and because everyone is engaged in productive labor.

Marxism is a science

          All of history can be viewed in terms of economic class struggle. An elite class subjugates the rest of society and imposes an economic system. The subject class resents being dominated and waits for its chance to seize control. Eventually, it will be able to rise up, overthrow the rulers, and establish a new order. Marx viewed this in terms of a thesis (the ruling class) that creates its own antithesis (subject class). The antithesis will eventually overthrow the thesis and a synthesis (a new social order based on a new economic system) will be created. This is an endless dialectical cycle. The synthesis becomes the new thesis creating a new antithesis that will eventually overthrow it.

          Looking briefly at history, consider the evolution of western civilization. Early societies were based on a master (thesis) and slave (antithesis) class structure. The master class created the slave class but was eventually overthrown by it. A new synthesis resulted: feudal society. The nobility became the new thesis, and their vassals, the new antithesis. Feudalism eventually gave way to a new synthesis: mercantile society. And mercantilism eventually gave way to capitalism. Marx called this historical progression of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis dialectical materialism. The dominant elite in a society always creates an antithesis that will eventually overthrow it. An understanding of the laws of history is essential if man is to control his own destiny. Dialectical materialism is a science deduced from the laws of history. Man can use these laws to discover and control his destiny.

Communism is inevitable

          Dialectical materialism says that each new synthesis is a higher stage of development. Feudalism is a more advanced system than a master/slave class society. Mercantilism is higher than feudalism and capitalism is higher than mercantilism. History is progress. Each new synthesis is an evolutionary step to something higher. Capitalism is the present synthesis. The industrialists are the thesis but they have created their own antithesis: the proletariat (working class). Workers comprise the vast majority of society. Because of the sheer strength of their numbers, they will eventually rise up, overthrow the capitalists, and create a worker's state. The new synthesis will be a communist society. The laws of history show that this is inevitable. The only question is when it will occur.

The communist state can be hurried along

          Communism is inevitable. It will happen sooner or later all by itself. But if the workers unite and work together they can make it happen sooner. Why prolong human misery and suffering when it can be ended once and for all? For this reason, Marxism urges workers to campaign actively to achieve communism.

Revolution is the way to achieve communism

          All new syntheses are achieved by revolution. Communism will be no exception. The ruling class never willingly hands over power to the subject class. Power must be seized. This is the way of history.

The communist state will initially be preceded by a dictatorship of the proletariat

          A communist state does not happen overnight. Once the workers have seized power, it will still take time for communism to be implemented. Initially a dictatorship of workers will be needed to impose communism on society. Force will have to be used against those who resist. Revolution is more than just seizing power. It also includes the period in which communism is being implemented. Although dictatorship and violence are not Marxist values, they are necessary to achieve a communist state. They are justified for the ultimate good of society.

The state will eventually wither away and disappear

          Once a communist society is established there will be peace and social harmony. There will be no need for police, courts, prisons, laws, or even a military. These will slowly wither away as they became unnecessary until they eventually cease to exist.

The communist state will be the end of history

          When the communist state is achieved, it will last forever. With the establishment of a classless society there can never be another antithesis. No disaffected class can ever rise up and overthrow the state. Thus, communism is the final stage of history. It is dialectical materialism's final synthesis. It is also the end of history because without wars and social struggle there will be little history to write about.

The end justifies the means

          Because the goal of creating of an ideal communist society is so admirable, all means of achieving it are justified. Revolution and violence are perfectly acceptable. The end (communism) justifies the means (revolution) because in the long run it will be for the good of society even if it causes short-term disharmony. An absolute value such as the good of society justifies any and all means in achieving it.

Morality is a tool used by the ruling class to suppress the subject class

          Historically, morality is always invented by a ruling class to control the behavior of the subject class. There is no absolute morality that everyone should obey. Marx goes so far as to say that his is the first philosophy that is value free. This is because Marxism is an ideology without a moral code. It provides a moral environment for people to live in but it gives no morals or laws for people to live by. They are unnecessary. Rational people (communists) can live in harmony without them. Morality is oppression and this is what communism is trying to eliminate.

Values are objective

          Marx says that all questions of value, meaning, and purpose can be decided by reason. Values are not subjective, relative, or a matter of taste but are objectively demonstrable.

The good of society is an objective value

          The good of society is an objective, self-evident first value that every rational person must accept.

 

Summary of communist factual premises

1.     Human behavior is determined by environment.

2.     Economic inequality is the cause of people's alienation.

3.     To eliminate economic inequality, private property and money must be abolished.

4.     The wealth of a communist society will be distributed equally among all citizens.

5.     Social harmony will result from the elimination of economic inequality.

6.     Human nature is not fixed and is in fact perfectible.

7.     Healthy people are altruistic.

8.     People are essentially rational.

9.     The communist state will be based on rational consent rather than force.

10. Atheism

11. Theism will whither away.

12. Efficiency

13. Marxism is a science.

14. Communism is inevitable.

15. The communist state can be hurried along.

16. Revolution is the way to achieve communism.

17. The communist state will initially be preceded by a dictatorship of the proletariat.

18. The state will eventually wither away and disappear.

19. The communist state will be the end of history.

20. The end justifies the means.

21. Morality is a tool used by the ruling class to suppress the subject class.

22. Values are objective.

23. The good of society is an objective value.

 

          This is a non-exhaustive list of some of communism's factual premises. They are either true or false. They have no value content. We will look closer to determine whether these factual premises are plausible, whether the argumentation is sound, and whether they are synchronic (essential) to communism.

 

Analysis of communism’s factual premises

Social Determinism

          Marx says that human nature is completely determined by environment. Society molds and conditions a person's behavior. A healthy society will produce healthy, well-adjusted individuals. An unhealthy society will produce criminals, murderers, perverts, and anti-social individuals.

           There are other theories of human behavior. One is that human nature is innate and that behavior is determined genetically. People are born with sexual, survival, and other egoistic instincts that for a large part determine their behavior.

          Another theory is that people have free will. Their environment conditions them to a degree, but in the end they are free to accept or reject this conditioning. Environmental and hereditary factors may limit the choices available to an individual but no matter how restricting these may be, people always have some ability to choose and create their own nature.

          Marx rejects both genetic and free will explanations of human behavior and says that environment is the only factor. Marx is convincing when he shows examples of how an environment influences an individual's behavior. But there are also convincing examples of how other factors play a role in some behavior. For example, an insane person may have no control over his actions. He has no free will and his environment may not be responsible for his behavior. This would be an extreme example of genetic determinism. In any society, there are always people raised in identical environments, twins for example, who develop completely opposite personalities. Free will would seem to be the only plausible explanation for this. Marx's social determinism is an interesting and useful explanation of human behavior but is not convincing as an absolute determining factor for all behavior.

          Absolute explanations are tempting but they are dangerous because they distort reality. Facts have to be made to fit the theory rather than the theory to fit the facts. Social determinism, genetics, and free all likely play a role in determining human nature. For certain individuals, one factor may be more dominant than others. Social determinism is a valuable approach to the study of human nature but we should be wary of considering it to be the sole determining factor.

          If human nature is completely determined by environment, then it follows that a perfect society would create individuals with perfect human natures. The problem with Marx's analysis is that if social determinism is not the only determining factor for behavior, then creating a healthy environment will not necessarily eliminate deviant behavior. If some part of human behavior is innate or is determined by free will, then anti-social behavior will still persist in a communist state. There would always be crime and social strife. This would make Marx’s goal of achieving an ideal communist state unfeasible.

Economics and human motivation

          Marx claims that economic inequality is the cause of human alienation. He presents a compelling case showing the psychological effect that inequality has on people and how it causes all sorts of social evils. But can all of men's evils be reduced so easily to one cause? Marx finds an important cause of alienation but he again makes it an absolute. It becomes the sole cause of all alienation. He may have a case for it being the major cause of alienation but not for it being the only cause. In so doing, he reduces all of human motivation to one factor: economics. Other factors such as sexuality are also major determining influence. Marx finds one cause of human alienation and through universal generalization he makes it the absolute cause of all alienation. This is an error in logic.

Feasibility of economic equality

          Is complete economic equality feasible in a society? Will the elimination of money and private property really result in equality? Total equality seems possible in theory but has been elusive in practice. The failure is again the result of Marx's misinterpretation of human nature. People like being unequal. They enjoy feeling superior and will always find ways to be unequal. In communist states, elites always emerge and take the best jobs, receive social perks, better housing, better education, have power over others, and increased access to the property and wealth of the state. Money and property are not the only means people have of making themselves superior. Only the most repressive regimes can approach perfect equality by eliminating all these other types of inequality. The result is usually a very unhappy population.

Perfectibility of human nature

          The idea of a perfect human nature implies a value judgment. Conceptions of perfection will vary according to the values one has. Heaven for one person may be hell for another. Atheism implies that values are subjective and this means there can be no objective definition of perfection.

          Marx, however, considers the ideal human nature to be altruistic. He believes people should be motivated by the good of others rather than by personal egoistic interests. With such motivation there could be no social disharmony. Communism will create a perfect environment where people's real altruistic nature will become evident. There is no empirical evidence, however, which would indicate that people are at base altruistic nor to suggest that in a communist state people would suddenly become altruistic.

          One of Marx's laws of history is that economics factors are the root of all human motivation. But once communism is achieved and human nature becomes perfected, altruism becomes the main motivation. This is a profound shift in human behavior. Either the law of history is absolute or it is not. If it is not an absolute law then it affects the rest of Marx's reasoning. If people can be motivated by non-economic factors, then Marx's prescription of economic equality might not be the panacea for all the social problems in the world. People might not be completely satisfied in life merely by economic prosperity and equality.

Rationality and altruism

          Marx argues that people are essentially rational and that rational people are altruistic. Unhealthy societies based on economic inequality pervert people's reason and make them act irrationally. In a healthy communist society they would regain their reason. Everyone would recognize the superiority of communism and the need to be altruistic. This is implausible. People have a capacity for reason but it is very unlikely that a change of environment will suddenly make everyone completely rational. A great deal of human behavior is precipitated by irrational emotions.

          Our analysis of atheism determined that all values and meaning that people choose for their lives are irrational in that they are determined by taste. If values and purpose cannot be based on reason, there is no possibility for any human action to be based on reason. This means that all human motivation and actions are ultimately irrational. Therefore, reason cannot compel someone to be altruistic. If people choose to value altruism, they do so irrationally as a matter of taste, the same as with any other value.

Repression and use of force

          The communist state, it is asserted, will be based on rational consent rather than on force. People will accept communism because it is superior to all other systems. Force would not be necessary. This is an unsound conclusion. All societies including democracies are based on force. Communism is no exception. Human nature is such that no matter how ideal a society may be, there will always be those who resist the social order. These people must be physically repressed or society will cease to function and dissolve into chaos. Marxism tries to get around this by asserting that such people would not exist in a communist state because human nature will have been perfected. This is extremely implausible and the empirical evidence from communist states indicates the opposite. People resist more than ever the loss of their freedoms and the state must become even more repressive to maintain power and order.

Communism and atheism

          Communism is considered to be an atheistic philosophy. One of Marx's most famous quotes is, “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the people.” Atheism, however, is not an essential, synchronic premise of communism. Historically, Marx was an atheist and this probably had a strong influence on the values he chose for himself. Diachronically, it is possible to show the role atheism played in the development of Marxism. Atheism can lead to a materialistic outlook on life and this materialism was probably the genesis of communism. But the genealogy of Marxist theory is diachronic to the actual theory of communism itself. It does not matter how one comes to have a theory. Only the synchronic theory itself matters.

          The reason atheism is not synchronic to communism is as follows. Marx says the primary alienation of people is economic. People are unhappy with the world and invent a fantasy world where oppression and misery do not exist. But in a communist state people will recognize religion for what it is. It is an irrational response of people to the misery and oppression of the real world, the cause of which is economic inequality. Religion is ultimately a derivative of economic inequality. Remove the economic cause and religion will disappear. Religion and other irrationalities will wither away as reason prevails. Marx reduces all religious motivation to economic factors. This is implausible because people have other motives for believing in God.

          Communism is ultimately justified by the good of society, not by atheism. Atheism is a value because it helps people recognize the superiority of communism and prevents them from holding religious views that might be opposed to communism. Atheism is a means for recognizing the logic of communism but is in no way a premise essential for communism. There are many theists who are communists and many atheists who reject communism. They are not necessarily in contradiction.

          It is not important whether Marx was right or wrong about economic inequality being the cause of religion. What is important is that Marxism is foremost an economic and not an atheistic theory. Religion is a derivative of economic alienation. Atheism is a conclusion derived from communism, not a premise supporting it. The soundness of communism does not depend on atheism being true.

Disappearance of religion

          Religion has declined in communist states. This may because of state repression and the absence of religious indoctrination. Religion withers somewhat but does not disappear entirely as predicted by Marx simply because the origins of religion cannot be entirely due to economic factors. Many people have a psychological need for meaning in their lives. Communism cannot provide this. Thus, some people will continue to invent meaning and purpose through religion. Countries that have reverted back to capitalism often see an increase in religion.

Efficiency of communism

          Marx asserts that communism is more efficient than capitalism at creating wealth. This theory is based on two premises. A communist society would have more people actively engaged in productive labor because the government and its bureaucracy along with the military, police, judicial, and penal institutions would be eliminated. And a planned economy with no competition would mean that there would be less wasted production.

          Empirical evidence from communist states suggests the opposite. To date, no communist state has achieved the wealth of the advanced capitalist countries. The reason is structural to communism. Communism provides no incentives for efficiency. There are no material rewards for innovation and productivity. This would violate Marx's goal of economic equality. Marx misinterprets human nature in believing that altruism and the good of society are incentive enough to make people work hard. The lack of material incentive results in poor productivity and poor quality.

           Marxism also misinterprets the cutthroat competition of capitalism as being inefficient. Competition hurts people and causes a lot of human misery but it is also the driving force of capitalism. It makes the producers extremely responsive to the market. Failure to be responsive is death. The consumer in a communist society has little influence on production decisions. Communist states always have problems producing the right goods in the right quantity and quality. The lack of a market economy means that communism can never be as efficient as capitalism. Communists must thus decide which is the more important value: efficiency or an equitable and humane society. They cannot have both.

Alienation

          Communist theory is based on the premise of material abundance. A communist state will prosper because it is so efficient at creating wealth. Material abundance is a key ingredient for social harmony. But if communism is not efficient at creating wealth, material abundance may not result and social strife may persist. While not as efficient as capitalism, communism can still usually provide for the needs of its citizens quite adequately. But its citizens look at affluent capitalist societies and feel inferior. They become alienated. And as Marx shows so forcibly, alienation leads to social disharmony.

Scientific Marxism

          Marx's theory of dialectical materialism is intriguing. As a model it provides a useful way of looking at history. But Marx claims that it is not just a theory, but a science. This is dubious.

          Marx's premise is that all history can be viewed in terms of economic class struggle. From this premise, Marx arrives at the scientific laws of dialectical materialism. His reasoning this far is sound. If his premise is true, if all history is based on economic class struggle, then historical laws could be discovered. Unfortunately, many other non-economic factors have a bearing on historical events. History is interpretive. It is not a science governed by absolute laws. We can devise theories and models that provide interesting perspectives for understanding events but no absolute laws that completely explain events and predict the future. The attempt to make history into a science fails because the factors governing historical events are too complex and subjective to be completely captured by any narrow conceptual framework. We can never explain objectively all the factors governing a historic event and because of this, history can never be a science.

Dialectical materialism

          Marx's conclusion that the communist state will last forever is inconsistent with his law of dialectical materialism. This law states that every thesis creates an antithesis that will eventually overthrow it. Yet once communism is achieved, this law somehow becomes inoperative. No future antithesis will overthrow the communist state. The law says this must occur, but Marx says that it will not happen to communism. Again, either the law is absolute or it is not. And if it is not, then communism might not be inevitable. And if the law is absolute then communism cannot last forever because a new antithesis will eventually replace it.

          The claim that communism is inevitable is based on the assumptions that dialectical materialism is a law and that Marxism is a science based on this law. As these are both dubious premises, the most that Marx could prudently claim is that the triumph of communism is probable. The fall of communism in the late 20^th century has shown this to be implausible as well.

History as progress

          Dialectical materialism views history as progress, as an evolutionary process toward higher stages of development until the highest stage is reached. This is an unsound interpretation. History has no ultimate purpose or goal. If there is no God and if life has no purpose, then there can be no purpose to history either.

Withering away of the state

          Marx says that the state will eventually wither away after the initial revolutionary period as it becomes unnecessary. Again, this is unlikely and results from Marx's mistaken view of human nature. The state will never become unnecessary. People will resist the loss of their freedom, even when it is for the good of society. For communism to endure, the state will have to remain in place in order to repress anyone who threatens the established order. This is what has happened in all communist states to date. The state does not wither away but actually grows more repressive.

          Marx again misinterprets human nature when he expects the dictatorship of the proletariat to eventually relinquish power without a fight. How do you tell people who have become accustomed to power that they are supposed to wither away? This contradicts Marx’s own law of dialectical materialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat, by this law, should establish itself as the new thesis and only give up power when forcefully overthrown by the antithesis it creates.

          Marx asserts that this dictatorship will not be like other ruling classes. It will be motivated solely by the good of society and will relinquish power when it sees it is no longer needed. The empirical evidence does not support this. In all communist countries the communist party becomes the new thesis. The rest of society becomes the antithesis. The communist party does not willingly surrender its power. The fall of communism throughout Eastern Europe in 1989 happened because the people (antithesis) were able to seize power from the communist party (thesis) and create new economic and social orders. This happened exactly as dialectical materialism said it would. Marx's conception of human nature was in error but his theory of dialectical materialism was right on the money.

Revolution and use of violence

          Communism can be divided into two parts: revolutionary theory on how it will be achieved and post revolutionary theory on what the communist state will actually be like. These two theories have completely opposite value premises. In revolutionary theory anything is permitted. The end justifies the means. Violence is acceptable and even desirable. After the revolution, the first truly moral state is born. Peace and social harmony prevail.

          There is a contradiction between the values of the communist revolutionary and that of the eventual citizen of a communist state. One is perfectly at ease conspiring, plotting, killing, and terrorizing; the other lives peacefully, works hard, cooperates with others and finds violence inconceivable. For Marxists, there is no contradiction. The end justifies the means before the revolution and it will continue to do so after the revolution. But after the revolution human nature will change. As people become more rational and social, violence and force will become unnecessary to maintain order. Force will wither away along with the state. Once communism is achieved, there can be no further end that would justify the continued use of violence.

          Communist states in the world today, however, all use force to maintain power. The problem is that it is not so easy in practice as it is in theory to switch from one morality to another. If it was acceptable to use violence in the past to achieve communism, why should it not be acceptable to use it in the future to protect communism? Even after the revolution is secure, opposition is regularly found and brutally repressed. Since opposition is irrational and evil, it is only rational to crush it.

Ends and means

          Marx concludes that the end justifies the means. If a value is absolute then any means are justified in achieving it. The good of society is an absolute value. Communism is for the good of society. Therefore any means are justified in achieving it. The reasoning is sound but the premises are suspect. This is contrary to our analysis of atheism which concluded that objective values are not possible. The good of society can only be a subjective value. Marx uses invalid reasoning to objectify a value and then uses this absolute value as a justification for violence and revolution. It does not necessarily follow that the end justifies the means. If values were objective and absolute this might be the case, but not when values are relative and subjective.

Theory and practice

          How can communism look so good in theory and turn out so bad in practice? Is it just poor translation from theory to practice, a few bad men who pervert communism for their own ends? Or is it something more basic? Marxist apologists claim that states that use violence and repression to maintain power are not truly communist and are in fact betrayers of communism. They argue that no true communist state has yet been created. We cannot, therefore, condemn communism on evidence from states that are not really communist. Instead of betraying communism, however, these states are merely following Marxist values to their logical conclusion. If all means are justified to achieve communism, then they must also be valid afterwards to protect the communist state.

          Marx errs not in logic but in the veracity of his premises. It is simply false that human nature will be perfected once communism is achieved. In any population there will be people who refuse to live by the social order. Threats to the communist state will always be imminent. And a state that believes itself justified in using any degree of force will soon become brutal. No state can exist without using force. But when there are no limits on the degree of force, a state soon becomes totalitarian. Since human nature is not perfectible, this is what communism leads to.      

Objective Values

          In our analysis of atheism we determined that all values are subjective. In accepting both atheism and objective values, Marx is in contradiction. Marx wants everyone to be compelled to accept communism. He wants communism to be a science and for this its values must be objectively demonstrable. There is nothing wrong in choosing values or even one basic value from which all other values are derived but it is inconsistent with atheism to call these values objective.

Absolute values

          Marx asserts that the good of society is an absolute value. This is inconsistent with our analysis of atheism where we concluded that values are matters of taste and are not absolute. If the good of society is not an absolute value, then communism is unsound because people could rationally reject altruism and choose egoistic values incompatible with communism.

Ideology and meaninglessness

          Marxism has a purpose: the creation of a communist state. This implies that there is some meaning associated with this endeavor. There must be some reason why we should strive to achieve this goal. If life had no purpose, then there would be no compelling reason for people to accept communism. As an ideology, communism implies that life has some meaning or purpose but this is inconsistent with atheism which implies that existence is ultimately meaningless.

Supremacy of reason

          Many of Marx’s factual premises are inconsistent with atheism. He assumes that all questions of value, meaning, and purpose can be decided by reason. In the preceding chapter we argued that if a person accepts atheism as a premise, and Marx does, then he must conclude that these questions can only be decided irrationally according to taste. Marx's analysis is superficial in that he professes atheism but does not consider its deeper implications.

Capitalism vs communism

          Many of Marx's writings, including his major work, CAPITAL, were an analysis and critique of capitalism. Marx attempts to justify communism by refuting capitalism and by showing that it is an unjust system. This is both unsound and diachronic. His critique of capitalism may be very good but it has no bearing on communism. Just because capitalism may be evil, it does not follow that communism must be good. They could both be evil.

          Communism owes its genesis to capitalism in that it is an attempt to right the perceived injustices of capitalism. Although the two theories are historically related, neither is essential to understanding the other. It is possible to define communism synchronically without reference to capitalism as I have done at the beginning of this chapter.

Marx’s diachronic approach

          Dialectical materialism, Marx's approach to communism, is diachronic. The emphasis is historical rather than philosophical. More effort is spent on showing how communism will come about, and why it is inevitable, than on explaining what exactly it is. The mechanics of how the communist state will function are only vaguely explained. Marx attempts to justify communism by showing that it is inevitable. Even if communism is inevitable, this does not necessarily prove that it is a logical, coherent, or attractive philosophy.

 

Conclusions on Marx’s communism

          There are grave problems with Marx's communist theory. Many of his factual premises are extremely implausible. This is caused by his quest for absolutes. He has many intriguing economic and historical theories but he presents them not as working hypotheses, but as objective, all-encompassing explanations of reality. Some examples of this are as follows:

·       Environment is an important determining factor for human nature but Marx makes it the only factor.

·       Dialectical materialism is a useful and interesting way of viewing history but it becomes a law.

·       Marxism is not a theory but a science.

·       Communism is not probable but inevitable.

·       Communism will last not for a while, but forever.

·       The good of society is an absolute and objective value.

·       Reason is absolute and can answer all questions of meaning and value.

·       Economic inequality is the sole cause of alienation.

·       All social disharmony is caused by alienation.

·       Human nature is perfectible.

·       The end justifies the means, absolutely.

·       All healthy people are naturally altruistic.

·       All religious belief is caused by alienation.

 

          These Marxist conclusions are based on unsound logic. Marx's method is to go from a particular to a universal generalization without justification. For example, he concludes that environment is an important determining factor for human nature. This is most likely true. But he goes from this particular to a universal generalization and says that environment is the only determining factor for human nature. Marx has many intriguing theories but they all become mysteriously transformed into universal, objective laws.

          Many of these propositions would be acceptable as partial explanations or as models of reality, but not as absolutes. The goal of communism, however, is not merely to present itself as an attractive philosophy, but to show that it is true and that other social, political, and economic theories are false. Marx is determined that all rational people be compelled by force of logic to accept communism. If values are a matter of taste, then people could reject the good of society as not being to their taste. Therefore, the good of society is presented as an absolute, objective value. If Marx's theories about economics and history are only partial explanations of reality, then communism might not be sound and rational people could reject it. Marx thus asserts that his theories are laws and that Marxism is a science.

          Marx's philosophical integrity is in question each time he tries to reduce all issues to a single and absolute cause or motivation. This can be a useful tool for exploring the possibilities of a particular line of reasoning, but Marx makes it his method. He commits the most elementary errors of logic every time he makes a universal out of a particular. He finds the most basic cause or motivation for a phenomenon and makes it the absolute cause. All other causes are ignored or are considered to be derivative. His quest for absolute generalizations is unsound and renders his conclusions suspect.

          Some of these offending premises, however, may be diachronic and might not affect the soundness of communism. Just as we searched for a hierarchy of value premises to discover which ones were crucial for communism, it is important to discover which factual premises are really essential. For example, we have already determined that atheism is not a synchronic premise of communism. Because of this, its truth or falsity has little bearing on communism. Communism could be a sound philosophy even if there were a God.

           The assertions that Marxism is a science and that communism is inevitable and will last forever are also diachronic. Neither is essential to communism. Communism may be feasible even if it is not inevitable and will not last forever. It may be feasible even if Marxism is not a science. Marx's theory of dialectical materialism is also not synchronic to communism. Dialectical materialism is in the same category as communism's revolutionary theory. Both are concerned with how communism will be achieved, not with what communism actually is. As such, they are diachronic. This is why neither was referred to in our original vision of the ideal communist society. Even if Marx's analysis of history and his revolutionary theory are wrong, communism may still be sound. The comparison of communism's efficiency with that of capitalism is also irrelevant. Comparisons are, by definition, diachronic and any reference at all to capitalism is irrelevant.

          Many of Marx's absolute generalizations are, however, crucial to communism. Marx's assertions that environment is the sole determining factor for human nature, that economic inequality is the sole cause of alienation, that the elimination of money and private property will create an environment of perfect equality, and that human nature can be perfected in such an environment are essential. Communism is based on these premises so they should be looked at very carefully. For communism to achieve its objectives, they must all be absolutes. Otherwise, communism is unsound. As none of them can be justified as absolutes, however, communism belongs in the wasteland.

          Communism is an ideology. It is an absolute system that applies to all individuals in a society. It has an absolute value: the good of society. It has an absolute worldview: dialectical materialism, atheism. It has an absolute plan of action: revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat. It has an absolute goal: creation of a communist state. All premises of an ideology are presented as being objectively demonstrable. Otherwise, compromise would be necessary. Ideologies allow no compromise. An ideology asserts that all other systems are false and that only it is true and just.

          An ideology is an example of the wrong way to approach philosophy. Marx seeks absolute answers and closes his mind to all but a single perspective. Reality must be distorted to fit into a narrow ideological framework. Truth is sacrificed in the attempt to make reality conform to a preconceived thesis. An ideology seeks only to prove what it already knows to be true. So it is with Marxism. Ideologies are inflexible and dogmatic and this is the opposite of the spirit of philosophy, the quest for truth wherever it may lead.

          Can anything be salvaged from communism? Many people still find communist ideals attractive. If a person accepts the “good of society” as a subjective starting value and ignores Marx's unsound universal generalizations, he may arrive at some form of socialism. There are many socialist theories that are logical, consistent, and less extreme than communism. Some people may find these systems to their taste. The fact that communism is unsound would be completely diachronic to any of these philosophies.

          Some readers may wonder how I can declare communism to be philosophically shallow and relegate it so easily to the wasteland. Communism has been one of the most important ideologies of the twentieth century and has had a tremendous historical impact on the world. This, however, is philosophically diachronic and irrelevant. Marx makes many simple errors of method, logic, and fact that would not be tolerated in philosophers of lesser stature. Marx is an example of the cult of the philosopher. Marx's stature comes more from the impact communism has had on the world than from the genius of the philosophy. Its power comes more from rhetoric than from logic. A philosophy must be judged on its own merits, not by the stature of its author. The only alternative is the wasteland.

 

Objectivism

          Ayn Rand's objectivism is a philosophy advocating individualism, capitalism, and atheism. By way of introduction, let us imagine what an objectivist society would ideally be like.

          In an objectivist society individual rights are absolute. A government exists but its powers are limited. It provides an army to protect against foreign invasion, a police force to protect its citizens, and a court system to settle disputes between individuals. That is all. The government has no role in welfare, health care, education, public works, highways, electricity, or any other domain not directly related to law and order. Its mandate explicitly forbids any interference in private matters such as these.

          Only the government has the right to use force. It cannot, however, initiate the use of force. It can only respond in retaliation against individuals who use force against others. Similarly, the mandate of the army is for defense, not aggression. Objectivists are willing to defend their property but recognize that peace and cooperation with their neighbors is in their own best interests.

          The individual in an objectivist society, if he is rational, is motivated by egoism and pursues his own self-interests. Robbing and killing others is not in his self-interest because the state will retaliate against him. Therefore, the rational person supports himself though productive labor. He realizes that work, not violence, is the best way to further his life.

          Capitalism is the economic system, not the mixed capitalism that exists in many countries today, but total, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism. The government has no mandate to legislate on economic matters because any limitation on free trade would violate the rights of the individual. People are free to produce, trade and to accumulate as much wealth as they like. They are also free to starve or remain in poverty if they are lazy, lack initiative, or are just plain unlucky. It is not a charitable society, but nor is it a mediocre society. Merit and ability are rewarded; laziness and ineptitude are punished.

          Capitalism functions on the basis of contracts between individuals. These contracts are enforced by the courts. Breach of contract is considered an indirect use of force by one individual against another. Thus, if the wronged party seeks redress, the state is justified in responding with force to uphold the contract. The objectivist state is industrialized and is very productive and prosperous. The wealth of society, however, is not shared equally. It is distributed according to ability and success, and this is as it should be. There is no economic equality, only political equality. Everyone is equal before the law.

          The government is not funded by taxes because forcible taxation is a violation of individual rights. Taxation is another name for legalized robbery. Instead, government funding is based on fees for services. For example, there is a fee on contracts if both parties want them to be enforced by the courts. The police and fire departments protect the security, rights, and property of individuals and people are willing to pay for their services. Similarly, rational people see that water, sanitation, electricity, roads, education, health care, libraries, and other services often provided by government are essential to their survival and they gladly pay for them. They pay no more than people in non-objectivist societies pay in taxes and insurance premiums, and have the satisfaction of funding the specific services they want and of getting the quality they desire.

          Citizens in an objectivist state have complete freedom and independence. They live in the world's first truly moral society.

Objectivism’s value premise

          This vision of a productive, peaceful, law-abiding, individualistic society is appealing. But before making any judgments, we will take a closer look at objectivism's value premises. Rand is very explicit in stating her values and in showing their hierarchy of importance. Objectivism starts with an absolute value premise. From this one premise it derives a hierarchy of values and creates a comprehensive objectivist morality. Objectivism approaches all issues from the perspective of this morality.

One's own life

          An individual's life is the ultimate value of objectivism. Rand means not that all life is a value, but that a person's own life should be his greatest value. All of objectivism's other values are derived from this one value. That which furthers a person's life is good and is a derivative value; that which threatens life is evil.

          This makes it very easy to get a first impression of objectivism. If readers accept their own life as their greatest value they may find objectivism attractive. They can continue their analysis to see whether the rest of objectivism's values logically follow from this first value. Conversely, if objectivism's first value is not to their taste, then there is no hope of ever accepting the philosophy.

          Rand, however, does not believe that her starting value is a subjective matter to be accepted or rejected according to one's taste. She argues that the individual's life is an objective value which reason and logic can prove to be valid. Furthermore, all values logically derived from an objective value must also be objective. Rand considers all of her derived values to be objective and to have a factual status. Values are not only good or bad, they are true or false. I therefore propose to look at the rest of objectivism's value and factual premises together because, in objectivism, values are facts. The two are indistinguishable. For Rand, objective means the opposite of subjective. It refers to things that exist independent of the individual and are not simply a matter of taste or a product of the imagination. Let us now look at the factual premises of objectivism.

Objectivism’s factual premises

“Existence exists.”

          This is the starting point of objectivism. Existence exists means that reality exists independent of the consciousness of the individual. Reality is objective, not subjective. People do not create reality, they merely observe it. They perceive reality and can come to know it but they cannot change it by wishing it different. There are many different perceptions of reality but there is only one reality.

Objective knowledge of reality is possible

          People observe the world, and when their perceptions accurately correspond to reality, they have knowledge of the world. Reason and logic enable us to perceive reality correctly and are ultimately what makes knowledge possible. Rand concludes that since reality is objective and we can know it, we can therefore have objective knowledge of reality.

Values are objective

          All values are derived from objectivism's first value. That which furthers an individual's life and survival is a value, and that which harms his life is not a value. But how are we to know in daily life which actions do promote our survival? If we could not know reality, we would never be certain. But since reality is objectively knowable, it is possible to discover the values that will further our life. Correct observation of the world reveals these values. These values are objective because they are derived from an objective value. Objective knowledge of reality is ultimately what makes objective values possible.

Survival is the first goal of life

          If an individual's life is the first value, then his own survival must be the most important derivative value. In objectivism, survival becomes the criterion by which all other derivative values are discovered. That which promotes survival is a value; that which threatens it is not.

Reason is a person's primary means of survival

          Only by using reason can a person know reality and discover the correct values that promote his survival. The stronger his power of reason, the stronger his survival skills will be. Therefore, reason is a strong value in objectivism.

Work is a value

          After reason, work is the next most important means by which a person survives. Through productive labor, people satisfy their material needs and create an environment favorable to their life and survival. Work is also psychologically and spiritually good for the individual.

Egoism is a value

          Egoism is usually thought to be a flaw. Not so in objectivism. Egoism is not to be confused with egotism which is the vain and selfish pursuit of irrational interests. Egoism is the rational pursuit of one's own interests. If one's own life is a supreme value, it follows that the individual should pursue his own life interests and that egoism should be his only rational motivation for action.

Atheism

          Rand rejects all religious, mystical, and superstitious explanations of existence. Atheism is the only true perception of reality. It is the only creed that recognizes that existence exists. By inventing gods, religions deny reality. They deny that existence exists. The individual who lives according to religious premises may well be harming his own life by acting on a false perception of reality. Atheism is the correct and only perception of reality which leads to the true objective values that promote life.

Reason is absolute

          Reason can solve all questions in life including questions of value, meaning, and purpose. If values were subjective and a matter of taste, this would not be possible because people could rationally hold conflicting values. Values, however, are either true or false and this means that all ethical questions can be resolved by reason. It is simply a matter of discovering the correct objective values and applying logic.

Happiness is the purpose of life

          An individual should make his own happiness the purpose of his life. Happiness is important because it promotes survival.

“There are no contradictions: check your premises.”

          This is one of Rand's favorite sayings. Because reality is objective, there is only one truth. And because there is only one truth, there can be no contradictions about reality. If there appears to be a contradiction, it is because you hold inconsistent premises. If you recheck your assumptions, you will find that at least one of them is false. The contradiction cannot be in reality, only in your perception of it. People who hold contradictory beliefs and do not feel the need to resolve the contradiction are irrational.

Without an absolute value, morality is impossible

          Morality is by definition a system of values designed to answer all ethical questions. Some sort of a hierarchy of values must exist so that a person can rationally decide between conflicting values. A hierarchy implies that no two values are equal and that ultimately one value must be supreme. Without a hierarchy and a supreme value, any attempt at constructing a morality would result in an unsystematic hodgepodge of values. There would be no way to make rational moral decisions. There must ultimately be one supreme value; otherwise, morality is impossible.

Only one correct morality is possible: Objectivism

          There can only be one absolute value. If there were two, then neither would be absolute. The only true absolute value is an individual's life. Objectivism is the only system derived from this value and is therefore the only correct morality. All other moralities are false.

Ethics is a science

          Values are objective and this means they are discovered, not invented. The task of ethics is to discover and deduce the objective values inherent in reality that promote life and survival. Ethics is thus the empirical science of morality.

A value should never be sacrificed for a lesser value

          Inevitably, important values conflict with one another. Indecision and ambivalence are unnecessary, however, because values are not equal. They are hierarchical and a person should always choose for the greater value. For example, if you help a friend at some expense to yourself, it should be because you value the friend more than whatever values you are sacrificing by helping him. Such acts are not sacrifices. A sacrifice is when someone sacrifices a greater value for a lesser one. Any seemingly altruistic act by a rational person is always motivated by a value greater than the apparent sacrifice and is therefore an egoistic act.

          All social interaction should be based on rational egoism. For example, love and friendship are not irrational emotions; they are the rational valuing of a person's positive qualities. Altruism is the opposite of egoism and is always immoral because it implies that a person is sacrificing his greatest value, himself, for some lesser value. A rational person never sacrifices his values.

Compromise is immoral

          Morality is objective and actions are either right or wrong. There are no gray areas. Compromise is an attempt to find middle ground and can only be accomplished by sacrificing greater values for lesser values. This is always immoral.

Individual rights and freedoms are inviolable

          Free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are essential rights. They protect an individual’s life, survival and well-being by allowing him to fully pursue his own self-interests. Individual rights and freedoms must be inviolable to ensure that the state cannot force people to act contrary to their own personal interests.

Property is an inviolable right

          The right to property is an individual's most important right. It provides the individual with the means to survive. It enables him to acquire and retain commodities such as food, clothing, and shelter that are essential to his life and survival. The state has no right to appropriate or confiscate an individual's property unless the individual has sacrificed his right by resorting to force.

Society is a value

          Society promotes the individual's survival because it is a source of knowledge and trade. The individual is usually materially and psychologically better off when he lives in a society.

The rights of the individual take precedence over the good of society

          Society may be desirable but only because it can promote an individual's life. It is not an end in itself. When the rights of an individual and the good of the state come into conflict, the individual always takes precedence. Otherwise, the individual might be sacrificed for the good of society. The sacrifice of a value such as the individual for the lesser value of society is always immoral. Society is justifiable only so long as it does not violate individual rights.

Violence is morally wrong

          It is immoral to harm one's own life. A person who uses force against others also harms himself because other individuals or the state will inevitably retaliate and punish him. Violence is morally wrong because in the long run the aggressor will suffer the consequences of his violence.

          Furthermore, violence is destructive to society and produces an environment that is unhealthy to all individuals. Again, it is immoral, not because it harms the victims, but because ultimately it harms the aggressor. The aggressor will have to live in the type of society his violence creates.

A rational existence is better than an animalistic existence

          Certain types of existences are immoral. Criminals who use violence and people who live on welfare and charity are immoral because they produce nothing and live off the productive labor of others. They are looters and parasites. They harm society and themselves at the same time.

          It could be argued that such nonproductive people are not irrational. They have merely found alternate means to survive and find happiness. Rand asserts, however, that their happiness is not true happiness and is in fact unhealthy. They are happy only in the way a lunatic is happy. This is a sub-human happiness. Crime and charity are sub-human forms of survival. Such existences are immoral because they cause psychological and physical harm to the individual. A rational, fully human existence is superior because it results in a happiness that is healthy for the individual.

The principle of trade is the basis of justice

          Justice can be defined as receiving payment equal to what is given. If someone commits a crime and receives a punishment equal to the gravity of the crime, then justice has been served. If he receives either more or less punishment than is merited, then justice has not been served. This is why justice is traditionally represented by a blindfolded lady holding a balance. She searches for the perfect equilibrium of punishment equal to the crime.

          Trade between individuals is essentially the same. If you pay five dollars and receive five dollars worth of merchandise, then justice has been served. If you receive more or less than five dollars value, then there has been an injustice to either you or the other party. Trade is the only moral basis for interaction between people. Trade is the opposite of force. People who believe in trade accept that they must pay for what they get; people who believe in force take whatever they want without paying. Only in a society based on trade, and not on force, are an individual's rights, property, and security protected.

Among rational people there can be no conflicts of interest

          If everyone were motivated by egoism, one would expect people always to be in conflict. Rational people, however, reject the use of force against others and recognize that their best survival interest is to live in a society based on the principle of trade. Among people who accept this principle there may be conflicts of desires, but never conflicts of interest. Disputes would be settled peacefully. The police and courts would deal with irrational people who try to obtain value by force.

Capitalism is the only moral economic system

          This is for two reasons. It is the only system that does not limit, and consequently violate, an individual's rights. Capitalism gives individuals complete and unlimited freedom to pursue their own economic self-interests. It is also the only system based on the principle of justice: free trade between individuals. All other economic systems are immoral because they violate individual rights and sacrifice this principle of justice.

The powers of government should be limited

          The mandate of government is to protect the security, rights, and property of individuals. The government has the right to legislate only on questions of law and order. It has no jurisdiction in economic or social domains. It can use force only in retaliation and only for the purpose of maintaining law and order, enforcing contracts, and protecting against foreign invasion. Only a limited form of government such as this is morally justifiable. With more power than this, governments could violate individual's rights and this would be wrong.

Democracy is evil

          Objectivism is opposed to democracy as a form of government. Democracy is immoral because it imposes the collective will on the individual and allows the majority to violate an individual's rights. Values are objective and are not simply that which the majority decides are good. More often than not the majority is wrong.

          Democracy is compromise because it allows people to choose between different values, beliefs, and philosophies. Objectivism is against all compromise because compromise means sacrificing correct values for incorrect ones. The idea that right and wrong can be decided by majority opinion goes against objectivism's most basic tenets.

          In an objectivist society, democracy will be unnecessary. Rational people will all have the same values and beliefs. They will make a code of laws, but once established, the code would never need to be changed. Since the laws are objective, they will never become outdated and only the occasional new law might be needed. There will be very little for the government to do in the realm of policy making. Its role will be mostly the administrative enforcement of law and order. For this, bureaucrats, not politicians will suffice.

Political equality is a value

          Individual rights are absolute and if they are valid for one person, then they are valid for everyone. Political inequality is not acceptable because it implies that some people are being denied their individual rights. Everyone is equal before the law.

Honesty, integrity, justice, pride, intelligence, productiveness, independence, rationality, and courage are values derived from reality

          Objectivism asserts that these qualities are values because they all ultimately promote the survival of an individual. They are not deduced directly from objectivism's first value, however, but discovered from experience. Only through our observations of reality, can we know that they really do promote survival. Objective knowledge of reality shows us they are values.

          The same is true for other values such as work, property, individual rights, political equality, capitalism, limited government, and egoism. They are also derived from objectivism's first value, the individual's life, but are ultimately only discovered from experience. There is no way that we can know beforehand that they promote life and survival. We can learn this only by observing the world and correctly interpreting reality. Objectivism claims to have done just this.

 

Summary of objectivism’s factual premises

1.       “Existence exists.”

2.       Objective knowledge of reality is possible.

3.       Values are objective.

4.       Survival is the first goal of life.

5.       Reason is a person's primary means of survival.

6.       Work is a value.

7.       Egoism is a value.

8.       Atheism

9.       Reason is absolute.

10.    Happiness is the purpose of life.

11.    “There are no contradictions: check your premises.”

12.    Without an absolute value, morality is impossible.

13.    Only one correct morality is possible: objectivism.

14.    Ethics is a science.

15.    A value should never be sacrificed for a lesser value

16.    Compromise is immoral.

17.    Individual rights and freedoms are inviolable.

18.    Property is an inviolable right.

19.    Society is a value.

20.    The rights of the individual take precedence over the good of society.

21.    Violence is morally wrong.

22.    A rational existence is better than an animalistic existence.

23.    The principle of trade is the basis of justice.

24.    Among rational people there can be no conflicts of interest.

25.    Capitalism is the only moral economic system.

26.    The powers of government should be limited.

27.    Democracy is evil.

28.    Political equality is a value.

29.    Honesty, integrity, justice, pride, intelligence, productiveness, independence, rationality, and courage are values derived from reality.

 

          These are some of the factual premises of objectivism. The goal was not to come up with the final interpretation of objectivism but to create an acceptable, working summary of objectivism's premises and reasoning that will allow us to continue on to a more critical examination. We will take a closer look at some of these factual premises.

 

Analysis of objectivism’s factual premises

Absolute, objective values

          Rand asserts that there is an absolute, objective value. Her choice of one's own life for this value seems sensible. Why should people not value their life and live for their own self-interests? Unfortunately, Rand can only show that her first value is sensible, not that it is self-evident, objective or absolute.

          The main objection to Rand's objectification of values and morality is that it is inconsistent with the premise of atheism which implies that objective values are not possible. This has serious consequences because both atheism and objective values seem essential for objectivism to be feasible.

Objective reality and objective knowledge

          Objective knowledge is another major premise of objectivism. Reality exists, we observe it, we use our reason to analyze it, and we come to have knowledge about it. By “objective knowledge”, Rand means knowledge that is not just belief, but absolute certainty. Rand's argument is as follows: reality is objective and we can know it; therefore, we can have objective knowledge (certainty) about reality.

          There are several problems with the logic behind this argument. Even if reality is objective, this does not imply that our knowledge can be more than belief. There is an invalid transference of the word “objective”. Objective reality means that there is only one reality and it is not a product of our imagination. Objective knowledge means knowledge that is absolute certainty. In the first case objective means the opposite of subjective. In the second, it means certainty. Rand's argument is specious because of the ambiguity of her terms. She goes from practical knowledge to certainty not by logical arguments but by shifting the definitions of her terms. Even if we accept the possibility of practical knowledge about reality, this does not imply that certainty is possible.

Atheism and objective knowledge

          Our analysis of atheism concluded that because we obtain information about the world through senses that often deceive us, human knowledge defined as certainty is impossible. Rand rejects this on the grounds that it is obvious people can and do have knowledge about the world. It makes no sense to waste time trying to prove premises that can perhaps never be proven. The practical solution is to assume objective knowledge as a premise and see where it leads. She ignores epistemological issues in order to get on with more synchronic parts of her thesis. This is an acceptable and sensible approach.

          The problem is that Rand presents objective knowledge is a fact. Instead of assuming it as a working premise, she goes asserts that objective knowledge is obvious and easily demonstrable. Her reasoning is that it is stupid and futile for people to believe they can never objectively know reality and to live their lives forever in an epistemological vacuum. Such an existence would be untenable. Since existence is not untenable, objective knowledge must be possible. This is poor logic. Wishing for objective knowledge to be possible does not make it so. Perhaps existence is tenable without objective knowledge. Her argument is similar to that of people who argue God must exist because a godless existence is unthinkable.

           Without objective knowledge, objectivism is unsound. Objectivist morality is based on values that promote survival. But if we cannot know reality objectively, then we can never be certain which values and actions promote survival. At best we could infer that some values are usually conducive to survival. We could have a pretty good idea that some values are good, but never certainty. A pretty good idea, however, can never lead to an objective morality. Rand is correct in saying that objective knowledge is what makes objective morality possible but fails to show that objective knowledge is possible.

Impossibility of omniscience

          Even if we accept that objective knowledge is possible, there are still problems. Unless we are omniscient and know all there is to know about reality, we can never be certain that something is really a value. Knowing only part of reality is insufficient. There would always be doubt about the correctness of our values. Some new knowledge could turn up that would prove our values false. Omniscience is clearly a human impossibility and this mean that objective values are also impossible. Rand assumes that if we can have objective knowledge about some things, then we can have it about all things. It is unsound to go from a particular to a universal generalization in this way. Even if objective knowledge about some things is possible, we cannot objectively know everything.

Ethics as science

          Rand says that ethics is a science. If values are objective, then Rand is quite correct. If an individual's life is a supreme value, then ethics, the science of discovering derivative values, is entirely feasible.

          The method of science is to observe particular phenomena, to make generalizations about them, and to hope that our hypotheses are valid for the rest of the universe. Deriving universal generalizations from particulars is inductive reasoning. Science accepts and uses a theory only so long as it consistent with empirical evidence. If new evidence leads to contradictions, then the theory is abandoned and a new hypothesis is formulated. The laws of science are valid only as long as they do not produce contradictions. Science produces theories, not objective facts, and the science of ethics would be no exception. The science of ethics could discover derivatives from an objective value but these derived values would never be objective because they are based on inductive reasoning. There is always the chance they could later be proven false. Thus, even if we accept Rand's supreme value as being objective, her philosophy would still be unsound because derivative values based on inductive reasoning would not be objective.

Universal generalizations

          Honesty, integrity, justice, pride, intelligence, productivity, independence, courage, and rationality are values derived from experience. But is reason really sufficient to determine that these are values? Rand can show particular instances where values promote life. From this she makes two universal generalizations. If a value is good in one instance, it will be good in all instances. And if a value is good for one person, it will be good for all persons.

          She reasons that since values are objective, they are always valid. It is not possible that a value can be good for one person and bad for another. This makes it easy for an objectivist to discover values because any value proven valid one time for one person can be universalized. If values were objective this would be a sound practice. Unfortunately, values are not objective and these universal generalizations are unsound.

          Rand makes this error repeatedly in her derivation of objectivist morality. An example is her conclusion that since work is good for some people, it is good for all people. From this, she concludes that people who do not work are immoral. She makes two elementary logical errors. First, the universal generalization that “work is good for all people” is invalid. Just because work is good for some people does not mean that it is good for all people. Second, work may be a value but she cannot conclude that people who do not work are immoral. Rand's error in logic is again an unsound universal generalization. She cannot conclude from “people who work are moral” that “all people must work to be moral”.

Survival

          Survival is the first derivative from objectivism's supreme value and becomes the means for judging other values. That which promotes survival is good; that which hinders survival is bad. Survival may be a good criterion for values in a subsistence society where life is a struggle, but in modern society survival is easy. People seek values not just to survive, but also to live a fuller, more meaningful life and to interact with others socially. It does not make sense to continue to live by a morality based only on survival when survival is a secondary concern. Most rules for social interaction in modern societies have little to do with survival.

Animalism and rational egoism

          Rand argues that an animalistic existence is inferior to a rational existence. Criminals and people who live on charity and welfare are considered to lead sub-human existences. Rand abandons logic and resorts to rhetoric to make her case. She tries to discredit these alternate lifestyles by associating them with pejorative terms. “Criminals” and welfare recipients are “looters” and “parasites” who live “sub-human”, “brutish”, and “animalistic” existences and their apparent happiness is only the happiness of a “lunatic”. Rand provides no plausible arguments to show why animalism is irrational. Rhetoric is her only defense for her position.

          Animalism is a serious challenge to objectivist morality. Animalistic lifestyles cannot be permitted because they are inconsistent with other objectivist values such as honesty, work, courage, pride, reason, and integrity. If animalism is acceptable, then all of objectivism's morality is undermined and becomes unsound.

          Animalism is not inconsistent with objectivism's first value. Criminals and parasites may simply be following their own rational self-interest. If they survive and prosper, then an animalistic lifestyle may not be illogical. If animalism does actually promote an individual's life and survival, then by objectivism's definition of morality, it must be moral. It is irrelevant that such people might harm society and other individuals.

          Rand responds to the problem of animalism by redefining egoism. She says that “rational egoism”, not egoism, is the only moral motivation for action and that animalism is irrational. But if animalism can promote an individual's life, which in some cases it must, then it is not necessarily irrational.

Conflicts of interest between rational men

          Rand states that there can be no conflicts of interest between rational men. The first objection to this is that values are subjective, not objective. And if people can rationally have different values, then there will always be conflict in any society, even an objectivist one.

          Even if we accept for the moment that the individual's life is an objective value, Rand still does not succeed in showing that crime and violence are irrational. If a criminal is successful at what he does and never gets punished, then it may well be in his rational self-interest to steal. And if crime is not necessarily irrational, then there can be genuine conflicts of interest between rational people.

Individualism

          If you can deduce universal values from any particular value, then the individual is reduced to the status of a collective. If every value holds for all persons, then individualism ceases to exist. Rational individuals become a collective entity, all sharing the same values and purpose. Persons who assert their individuality by rejecting an objective value are declared incorrect and irrational. This is the opposite of individualism. Objectivism is probably the most individualistic of all philosophies, but its practice of deriving universal generalizations from particular values is inconsistent with its professed individualism.

Individualism and a social vision

          Objectivism proposes an ideal society consisting of capitalism, limited government, and inviolable individual rights. Force would be used to maintain this social order. The individual who does not accept the order will be physically prevented from harming it. Rand starts with the individual and ends with a social vision. How can a philosophy whose supreme value is the individual prescribe any specific social order? If the individual is an absolute value, then any social prescription whatsoever, no matter how beneficial it may be for the individual, would be a violation of the individual's right to live as he pleases.

          Objectivism would answer that an objectivist state is for the good of all rational individuals. It is in their best interests, even if they do not realize it. This reasoning is astonishingly similar to that of proponents of collectivism who justify their ideology because it is for the good of society. Objectivism is bitterly opposed to any type of collectivism and usually denounces this type of reasoning. The first law of individualism is that only the individual knows what is in his own best interests. Rand is opposed to letting the majority decide her best interests, but she herself is ready to decide the best interests of all individuals.

Objectivism and atheism

          Is atheism essential to objectivism? To accept objectivism, a person must accept two premises: that an individual's life is a supreme and objective value; and that existence exists. By Rand's definition, anyone who accepts religion denies that existence exists. Only atheists accept reality. Rand's other premise that a supreme objective value is possible is more problematic. Atheism implies that there are no objective or absolute values. Therefore, no consistent atheist could accept Rand's values as objective. It seems that one must be an atheist to accept that reality exists and that one must be a theist to accept objective values. This would exclude everyone from objectivism.

          Furthermore, atheists who accept Rand’s premise that existence exists may remain skeptical of the possibility of objective knowledge. Atheism implies that if there is no God, practical knowledge about reality is the best we can achieve. Although objectivism is considered an atheistic philosophy, its essential premises are incompatible with atheism.

Objectivism and the meaning of life

          In order for objectivist morality to be compelling, it must explain why we exist and what the ultimate meaning of existence is. There must be a reason for being moral. Otherwise, people would not be rationally compelled to accept one morality over another. Rand says that morality is a means to an end and is only justified if it achieves its ends. She offers survival and personal happiness as the purpose and meaning of life. But why is it important that we survive and be happy? Rand can argue that these are sensible purposes, but not that they are objective. If our analysis of atheism is correct, then there is no absolute purpose or meaning to life and there can be no objective reason for being moral. Rand’s belief that survival and happiness are objective values is inconsistent with the premise of atheism.

Conclusions on objectivism

          Objectivism is attractive in that it is more synchronic than most philosophies. Its premises are clearly stated and much of its reasoning is logical, consistent, and systematic. Objectivism attempts a moral justification of capitalism. Surprisingly, this has never been done before. Capitalism has always been defended because it works, or because it is the best system available. These are pragmatic justifications. Rand wants to give capitalism a moral foundation.

          The concept of rational egoism is also attractive. It makes sense to pursue one's own interests in life. Rand shows convincingly how the concept of rational egoism leads to capitalism, limited government, and inviolable individual rights.

          Objectivism, however, goes beyond conventional notions of capitalism and conservatism. It is much more extreme. Objectivism is an ideology. It has an absolute value: the individual's life. It has an absolute morality derived from this value: rational egoism. It has an all-encompassing worldview: objective reality, atheism. It has enemies: collectivism, altruism, and irrationality. It has an absolute goal: an objectivist society based on limited government, laissez-faire capitalism, and inviolable individual rights. As with all ideologies, it is dogmatic and inflexible. Rand believes her premises are absolute and objective and that her conclusions must therefore also be absolute. Objectivism claims to answer all questions about meaning, purpose, and values and to provide an absolute morality for people to live their lives by. Everything is black or white. There are no contradictions.

          Unfortunately, objectivism is unsound. Its first value premise, the individual's life, and its first factual premise, that existence exists, appear to be based on common sense. But for objectivism to succeed, it must show that an individual’s life is an objective and absolute value and that objective knowledge of reality is possible. Rand does not succeed at this. First, objective values are inconsistent with the premise of atheism which implies that all values are a matter of taste. Second, objective knowledge defined as certainty is also contrary to our atheistic conclusion that a good practical knowledge of reality is the best we can achieve.

          By now it is obvious where objectivism gets its name. For objectivism to be sound and applicable to everyone, all its value and factual premises must be objective. Objectivism fails for numerous reasons. The individual's life can only be a subjective value. This alone makes objectivism unsound. Objective knowledge of reality is doubtful; omniscience is impossible. Again, this by itself makes objectivism unsound. Animalism is not necessarily irrational. This undermines objectivism's whole morality and makes the philosophy unworkable. There is faulty logic. Rand consistently derives universal generalizations from particulars and declares these generalizations to be absolute and objective. Again, this by itself makes objectivism unsound.

          Where does this leave objectivism? Can anything be salvaged? If atheists accepts their own life as a subjective, personal value and adopt objective reality as a working assumption, then they may find objectivism's worldview, morality, and politics attractive. But they would have to accept that other worldviews might not necessarily be irrational. A watered down objectivism is not appealing to those who seek the absolute prescriptions of an ideology. Objectivism would be no more than a personal philosophy. In fact, once objectivism is stripped of its extremism and absolute generalizations, we are left with the values of egoism, individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism, and limited government: in a word, conservatism.

          Does objectivism belong in the wasteland? Ayn Rand is a rationalist. She is against all mystical, superstitious, and religious explanations of reality. She detests the trend in modern philosophy toward philosophical agnosticism. She is against the pessimism that reality is unknowable, that knowledge is impossible, and that values can only be relative and subjective. She describes “that vacuous and sterile wasteland of modern philosophy.... Never before has the world been clamoring so desperately for answers to crucial problems and never before has the world been so frantically committed to the belief that no answers are possible.” I, of course, cheer whenever I encounter fellow wasteland critics even though I suspect she would include my moral relativism as part of the wasteland.

          I like Rand because she is concerned with questions of meaning, purpose, value, and morality. These are issues that have a direct bearing on our everyday lives. She criticizes philosophers who abandon the search for answers to these questions and instead waste their time on philosophical abstractions that have no bearing on people's lives. Objectivism is her attempt to redeem philosophy from the wasteland, to return it to rationalism and objectivity, and to answer important questions about meaning and value. She wants to make philosophy relevant and essential to everyday life.

          Objectivism, however, is ultimately the result of bad method and faulty logic. The quest for absolutes is unsound. Without justification, objectivism asserts that all its factual and value premises are absolute and objective. They are not presented as suppositions, but as proven facts. This is a method that belongs in the wasteland. No matter how rigorous and sound the rest of her philosophy may be, objectivism's foundations are corrupt. In spite of her commitment to reason, Rand in the end succumbs to ideology. She does not “check her premises.”

          For objectivism to succeed, values must be objective and reality must be objectively knowable. Rand is thus faced with a dilemma. She has committed herself to certain values, but without objectivity the philosophy is unsound. She could assume objectivity as a working premise but this does not achieve her real goal. She wants objectivism to be absolute. She wants it to be applicable to everyone so that all rational people would be compelled by logic to accept it. To do this she must prove her premises. Unfortunately, objectivity is a metaphysical concept that cannot be proven by logic, reason, or experience. In order to make her philosophy universally applicable to all people, she uses unsound universalizations and rhetoric. In her attempt to prove the improvable she resorts to unsound methods.

          This is not a simple case of having false premises. Rand asserts that it is self-evident that the individual's life is an objective value and that reality is objectively knowable. For the atheist, neither is at all self-evident. For this, Rand merits the wasteland. Instead of clearing it away, she becomes part of it. The philosophical road to the wasteland is paved with good intentions.

 

Existentialism

          No two existentialists define their philosophy in exactly the same way. There are religious existentialists and atheistic existentialists. They all share common themes but their philosophies can be quite different. In this chapter we will limit ourselves to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre. By way of introduction let us look at Sartre's vision of how an individual should approach his own existence.

          First, we start with the facts of existence. There is no God and existence has no absolute or divine meaning. In fact, life has no meaning at all. We are born, we exist for a while, and then we die. There is no purpose to any of it. There is no reason why we should exist.

          The absence of God means there are no intrinsic values in life. There are no absolute values or morality waiting to be discovered. Values are created by individuals and are therefore subjective and arbitrary.

          No God means that people have free will. Our lives are not controlled by fate or destiny. We are born with certain genetic characteristics into a given social environment but we still have absolute freedom to create our own personality and nature.

          Absolute freedom means that a person has to choose. Every action implies a choice. The decisions an individual makes will determine his essence. Even if he passively accepts the role that society imposes upon him, this is still a choice. He could have chosen otherwise. Absolute freedom implies absolute responsibility. The individual cannot blame others for the consequences of his actions or deny responsibility for the actions he takes.

          These are the essential facts of existence. There is no God, no meaning or purpose to existence, and no absolute values or morality. In short, life is absurd.

          Nevertheless, man exists and has absolute freedom to create his own essence. Knowing these things, how should an individual approach his existence?

          Nausea is the individual's first reaction. The discovery that existence is meaningless and that the meaning and purpose people give to their lives is false causes revulsion. Life is absurd. The void is all there is and people who face up to this fact must nevertheless exist knowing that all that they do before they die will be vain and futile.

          It takes courage to face the void of life's meaninglessness. Most people refuse to confront it and insist on believing there is some great purpose and meaning to life. These people are in bad faith. They deceive themselves.

          To live and act in good faith, individuals must face the void and, in spite of the meaninglessness they find there, choose values and create their own essence. It does not matter what values they choose, only that they choose. To act in good faith and live an authentic existence individuals must exercise their freedom.

          The act of choosing involves anxiety and anguish. There are no guidelines and no way to justify one choice over another. Every decision is arbitrary. Individuals choose knowing full well that life is absurd and that ultimately their choices will be meaningless. Their absolute responsibility only increases their anguish. Furthermore, individuals must choose as if they were choosing for all mankind. Existentialism is not for cowards. People who do not actively choose and instead passively accept whatever values and role society thrusts upon them are in bad faith.

Existentialism’s value premises

          We will start our analysis of Sartre's existentialism by determining the value premises implied by this existential vision.

Authenticity

          Sartre's concepts of good and bad faith imply the notion of authenticity. People who act in good faith lead authentic lives; people who act in bad faith lead unauthentic lives. Authenticity is the ultimate value of existentialism. Sartre says that we should strive to lead authentic lives.

Freedom

          People have complete free will. This is good because it means that people can be like Gods and create their own essences. Freedom is a value

Choosing

          To create their own essence, people must choose. Choosing is the exercise of freedom. People who do not choose are in bad faith. Choosing is thus a value.

Courage

          This is a value because only with courage can people face the void; only with courage can they make choices the know are completely arbitrary; only with courage can they become authentic.

The individual

          Existentialism is not a social vision. The goal is not to create a social utopia. The focus is on the individual and how he faces his own existence. The emphasis on authentic existence implies that the individual is a value.

Analysis of existentialism’s value premises

          These are the primary values of Sartre's existentialism. A hierarchy of importance is implied. Authenticity is the ultimate value and should be the goal of every individual. The other values are all means to authenticity. The individual becomes authentic by choosing his own values and thereby creating his own essence. Choosing is thus a value. But an individual can only choose if he has courage to face the void and choose values in spite of it. Courage is thus a value. Likewise, an individual can only choose if he has free will. Without free will, authenticity is impossible; therefore, freedom is a value. 

          Existentialism is foremost an individualistic philosophy. It has no social vision and is concerned only with the individual and how he faces his existence. It does not matter what values a person has, nor whether they are beneficial or harmful to society, so long as they were actively chosen. Since life has no meaning, all values are arbitrary, and none is superior to another.

          Analysis of existentialism's value premises provides a basis for further critical analysis of the philosophy. The reader's first impression of Sartre's existentialism will depend greatly on the concept of authenticity. If authenticity is acceptable as a value, then existentialism may be attractive and compelling. If authenticity is not to one's taste, then no further analysis of its factual premises will make it any more acceptable. We will look closer at the concept of authenticity but first let us examine the factual premises of Sartre's existentialism.

Factual premises of existentialism

Atheism

          The denial of God is a starting premise of Sartre's existentialism.

“Existence precedes essence.”

          This is another starting point for Sartre's existentialism. People are not born with any innate, fixed, or predetermined personality or human nature. First a person exists (he is born) and then he creates his own personality or essence. His essence is subsequent to his existence. The lack of God means that there is no divine being who has already fixed man's nature.

Existence is meaningless

          Because God does not exist, there can be no absolute or objective purpose or meaning to life. Where could these come from? People invent all sorts of meanings for their lives but these have no objective validity. Meaning is personal and subjective and anyone who believes otherwise is in error.

Life is absurd

          Existence is meaningless yet people exist without reason or purpose. Life without purpose is absurd. Life is absurd.

People have absolute freedom

          People are not born with a fixed essence (“existence precedes essence”) and there is no God to limit a person's freedom. People have free will and complete freedom to create their own essence.

Individuals become authentic by exercising their freedom

           Authentic individuals are those who create their own essences. Individuals create their essence by choosing values and deciding how to live their life. Choosing is the act of exercising one's freedom and is the way to become authentic. Individuals who passively accept values are unauthentic and in bad faith.  

Values are subjective and arbitrary

          Without God, there can be no objective source for values. Individuals invent values. Different people will choose different values.

People can still be critical of values on the grounds of bad faith

          Even though values are subjective, we can still rationally be critical of other people's values. We cannot necessarily condemn the content of their values but we can judge how they come by their values. People who passively accept their values are unauthentic.

Individuals must choose as if they were choosing for all mankind.

          Sartre says that individuals, in choosing what is good for themselves, are choosing what is good for everyone. Furthermore, they must bear absolute responsibility to the rest of mankind for every value choice they make.

Choosing entails anguish

          Dread, fear, anxiety, and anguish all accompany choosing because there are no moral absolutes to guide us. The individual's choice will be completely arbitrary. Furthermore, individuals have the enormous burden of choosing not just for themselves, but for all of mankind. They feel anguish knowing they bear complete responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

Nausea and revulsion accompany the void

          The recognition that life is meaningless and absurd and that everything we live for is pointless can only result in philosophical revulsion.

The absence of god makes morality possible

          The absence of God means that people have absolute freedom. This is what makes morality possible for without free will individuals could not be held accountable for their actions. Without freedom, there can be no guilt or responsibility.

“There are no adventures.”

          This is one of Sartre's most interesting conclusions. Life is a series of unconnected, meaningless events. In calling something an adventure, we try to create a chain of meaning where none exists. For example, an adventure implies success, after taking some risk, in achieving a goal. But every goal, even survival, is ultimately meaningless and any series of events we perceive to be an adventure is also meaningless. Events simply happen and there is no rational connection between them.

“Man is a useless passion.”

          This is Sartre's most famous quote. People become so passionate about their existences and get caught up in wars, intrigues, romances, quests, and other passions. But existence is meaningless and all of these passions are ultimately futile. Life has no purpose and man is therefore a useless passion.

 

Existentialism’s factual premises

1.     Atheism

2.     “Existence precedes essence.”

3.     Existence is meaningless.

4.     Life is absurd.

5.     People have absolute freedom.

6.     Individuals become authentic by exercising their freedom.

7.     Values are subjective and arbitrary.

8.     People can still be critical of values on the grounds of bad faith.

9.     Individuals must choose as if they were choosing for all mankind.

10.  Choosing entails anguish.

11.  Nausea and revulsion accompany the void.

12.  The absence of god makes morality possible.

13.  “There are no adventures.”

14. “Man is a useless passion.”

 

Analysis of existentialism’s factual premises

Absurdity of life

          Sartre concludes that life is absurd. His reasoning might be as follows: Life should have meaning; life has no meaning; therefore, life is absurd. This is not a sound argument. Just because life does not live up to our expectations does not mean that it is absurd. The problem is with the premise “life should have meaning”. There is no philosophical reason why life should have meaning.

          Sartre might instead argue as follows: people live as if life had great meaning; life has no meaning; therefore, life is absurd. Again this is unsound reasoning. The logical conclusion from this argument is not that life is absurd, but that people are absurd.

          To call life absurd is to make an unwarranted value judgment about a factual premise. “Life is meaningless” is a factual statement. It is either true or false. The meaninglessness of life is neither good, nor bad, nor absurd. “Life is absurd” is a value judgment. Value judgments about factual premises are unwarranted. They usually carry a positive or a negative connotation that may bias further analysis. In this case, people who conclude that life is absurd may become cynical in their approach to existence.

Authentic existence

          Sartre concludes that values are subjective and are created by individuals. But after saying this, he later concludes that all people should actively choose their values. Those who do not are acting in bad faith. This seems like a contradiction. If values are subjective, how can Sartre prescribe a particular course of action for all people? Freedom is a simple fact. It is neither good nor bad. There is no philosophical reason for exercising freedom and striving to be authentic. Sartre makes authenticity into a prescriptive value. This is inconsistent with his previous conclusion that there are no absolute values.

          Furthermore, since life is meaningless, how can Sartre conclude that certain types of existence are authentic and others are not? If existence is meaningless, then it should not matter how a person lives his life. Philosophically, it would make no difference whether man creates his own essence “authentically” or passively accepts whatever essence society thrusts upon him. If life had a purpose, then this would matter, but life has no purpose.

Anxiety and anguish

          Facing the void causes nausea and revulsion. The act of choosing entails anxiety, anguish, dread, and fear. Sartre presents these as philosophical conclusions. These are emotional reactions to facts and as such they belong in the realm of psychology, not philosophy. Man has a deep psychological need for meaning and absolute values but this does not mean they exist. Meaning may be a psychological necessity, but it is not a philosophical or logical necessity. The meaninglessness of existence is a fact, nothing more. Our psychological reaction to this fact is irrelevant and diachronic to philosophy. Similarly, man's absolute freedom to choose is a factual premise. Anxiety, anguish, and dread are psychological, not philosophical reactions to this freedom. Existentialism is essentially a study of individuals’ psychological reactions to a meaningless existence. Existentialism is unsound as a philosophy because it attempts to draw philosophical conclusions from a psychological analysis.

Existentialism and moral prescriptions

          Choosing for all mankind is essentially a variation of the golden rule to act as you would have others act toward you. This gives existentialism a universal moral prescriptive status and appears to be an attempt to defend existentialism from the charge of nihilism. The whole idea contradicts the fundamental premise of authenticity when somehow individuals can be in bad faith when exercising their freedom if they do not choose for all mankind.

          Sartre's problem is that if choosing is the only criterion for authenticity, then people could choose anti-social values and still be authentic. Criminals and murderers who act in good faith (they face the void and choose their own values) would be perfectly authentic. Sartre tries to exclude such people from authenticity by stating that the individual must choose as if he were choosing for all mankind. This prescription comes out of the blue, has no justification, and is inconsistent with existentialism's other premises. There is no philosophical reason why a person must choose for all mankind. Only if there were some objective values would this be necessary. Sartre concludes, however, that all values are subjective. Choosing for all mankind is an attempt to limit freedom by applying moral censure to individuals who choose only for themselves and not for everyone else.

          The creation of a value implies a purpose. The creation of an absolute value implies an absolute purpose. Values and purpose are reciprocals. A moral prescription without any purpose, reason, or justification is not rational. Even religions have a reason behind their moral commandments (“Because God wills it”). Sartre offers moral prescriptions for us to act in good faith, to face the void with courage, and to choose for all mankind. At the same time he maintains life is absurd and meaningless. Why then should anyone act in good faith or face the void? There is no philosophical reason yet people are cowards, unauthentic and in bad faith if they do not. Sartre tries to convince with rhetoric rather than logical argument.

Conclusions on Sartre’s existentialism

          Sartre starts with an accurate analysis of existence. Existentialism is one of the few atheistic philosophies that carry atheism to its ultimate logical conclusions. But after a profound start, existentialism becomes shallow. It devolves into a psychological analysis of the individual's emotional reaction to his existence. The individual, facing the void, is filled with nausea and revulsion. Choosing produces anguish, dread, anxiety, and fear. Sartre presents an interesting psychological analysis of these reactions but this is not philosophy. There is no philosophical reason why people should experience nausea and revulsion when facing the void. Freedom and the void are facts, not problems. Viewing them emotionally is philosophically unsound. Existentialism is psychology masquerading as philosophy.

          Sartre's concept of authenticity is an attempt to create meaning where his own analysis has shown none can exist. This leads to an escape into emotionalism and irrationality. The whole philosophy of existentialism results from viewing the void not as a fact, but as a problem to be overcome. The meaninglessness of existence is neither good nor bad. People may wish that life had meaning and feel sick that it does not. Philosophically, they should accept a factual premise if they find it compelling, without becoming emotional about it.

          The concepts of authenticity and bad faith are philosophically unjustifiable and inconsistent with Sartre’s earlier conclusion that there are no absolute values. He ends up creating a quasi-absolute value and gives it a universal prescriptive status. Everyone is in bad faith if they do not face the void and actively choose their own values. This is an elementary error in logic. Sartre claims he is not concerned with the content of an individual's values, only that they choose. But prescribing that people choose means that he is concerned with the content of values. He wants people to value choosing.

          If Sartre intends authenticity to be an absolute value (i.e. a universal moral prescription), then existentialism is unsound because this contradicts its essential premise that there are no absolute values. And if we abandon authenticity as a universal value, then existentialism becomes no more than a psychological study of man's emotional reaction to his existence. Sartre’s existentialism is either unsound or shallow and, as philosophy, merits the wasteland.

 

Nietzsche

          “It is my ambition,” says Nietzsche, “to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a whole book, – what everyone else does not say in a whole book.” Nietzsche's goal, to be both profound and concise, is the perfect expression of the synchronic ideal. In this chapter we will look at Nietzsche's philosophy and see if he lives up to his ambition. We will ignore his critical writings and concentrate on his constructive philosophy. Let us start by looking at Nietzsche's vision of existence and the ideal man.

          People are unequal. They have different abilities and talents. Individuals with great intelligence, rationality, passion, and strength of character stand out from the rest of the population. By virtue of their mental and physical superiority, they are supermen. It is unnatural to force them to be equal. It is better to let them assert themselves and dominate their society. They should have free reign to develop their talents and realize their fullest potential. The development of the superman should be the goal of society.

          The superman's strong “will to power” makes him superior to other people. Will to power is lust for life. It is the will to live life to the fullest. This entails more than mere survival. A person with a strong will to power affirms life and enjoys himself completely. He has goals and is determined to accomplish them.

           Will to power does not necessarily refer to political power or domination over others. It can include this, but it is much more. Strength, courage, intelligence, reason, passion, confidence, pride, determination, and inquisitiveness are other aspects of will to power. The superman has them all.

          The superman rejects God and religious morality. He knows there is no divine meaning, purpose, or value to life and is glad of it. This means he is completely free to choose his own values and create his own reasons for living. He does not need to justify life or the values he chooses.

          The superman is an egoist. His own agenda is always his first priority. Because of his superiority, he does not feel bound by society's laws and its puny conceptions of good and evil. Nor does he feel any duty toward others. His first responsibility is to himself. He will hurt others if it serves his interests and never feel remorse. Guilt is irrational. Guilt is the opposite of will to power. The superman is the first ideal human being.

Nietzsche’s values

Nietzsche's vision of the superman is extreme, but before making any judgments let us look closer at Nietzsche's values.

Will to power

          This is the first value for all of Nietzsche's philosophy and becomes the criterion by which all value judgments are made. That which has a strong will to power is good; that which does not is bad.

The superman

          The superman is an ideal because he is the perfect embodiment of will to power. The superman is a secondary value derived from will to power.

Life

          Life has no inherent value. There are no rational grounds for valuing life. Nevertheless, Nietzsche decides that he will value and affirm life. Without justification, he says yes to life.

Inequality

          Average people can never attain the level of the superman. Equality is evil because it can only be achieved by forcing superior individuals to become average and mediocre. This would destroy their will to power. The superman is superior to other people and we should value his superiority, not try to destroy it. Because Nietzsche values superiority, he must also value its corollary, inequality.

Egoism

          The superman's greatest value is himself. Therefore, egoism is a value. It is only rational for the superman to pursue his own self-interests. Egoism is an aspect of will to power.

Individualism

          Nietzsche's goal is not to create the ideal society, but to create the ideal man. Society is not an end in itself and is in fact the negation of will to power. To function, a society must suppress individuals with strong will to power. They are regularly sacrificed for the good of the collective. The superman is an individualist and values himself before society.

Inquisitiveness

          Inquisitiveness is a part of lust for life and is an aspect of will to power. The superman questions everything. Inquisitiveness is the starting point for philosophy.

Instinct

          Reason cannot provide meaning or values and therefore cannot be a person's sole guide in life. The individual must ultimately trust his instincts. If he has a strong will to power, then his instincts will be good. Instinct is an important aspect of will to power.

Self-discipline

          The superman has personal goals to achieve. He wants to make the world conform to his will. But to achieve his goals, he has to control his impulses and form rational plans of action. He needs self-discipline. The stronger a person's will to power, the stronger his self-discipline will be. The superman must be hard on himself. Self-discipline is a part of will to power.

Reason and passion

          Passion helps an individual create values and goals. Reason helps an individual achieve his goals. Passion and reason are not opposites. Passion should not be suppressed by reason nor reason by passion. These two qualities complement each other. One without the other is useless. Nietzsche denies the passion/reason dichotomy and instead talks of reason sublimated by passion and passion sublimated by reason. Both are values. Both are aspects of will to power. The individual should strive to be as passionate and rational as he can.

Health and strength

          The healthier and stronger an individual is, both physically and psychologically, the greater his will to power.

Confidence

          Self-doubt and guilt destroy a person psychologically and are the opposite of will to power. Confidence is essential to the psychological health of an individual.

Honesty, courage, pride, politeness, generosity

          These are some of the values Nietzsche has discovered by looking back at ancient Greek and Roman times. Nietzsche admired the Greeks and Romans and reasoned that since their values were the product of strong will to power, they should still be valid today.

Democracy and socialism are decadent

          Democracy and socialism are decadent because they are based on the premise of equality and collectivism. Democracy advocates political equality; the collective will decides what is right and wrong. Socialism champions economic equality; the collective good of society is all-important. Neither is an ideal breeding ground for the superman. Such societies take away the challenges in life. There are no obstacles to overcome. The emphasis is on mediocrity. The individual is smothered by society. People are forced to be equal. Superior individuals are repressed because they threaten the collective. This is decadence. Only an elitist society can be justified. The greater the inequality among men, the better.

Superiority

          Nietzsche instinctively admires the unique over the commonplace, the heroic over the cowardly, genius over ignorance, ability over ineptitude, and strength over weakness. In a nutshell, he admires superiority over mediocrity.

Analysis of Nietzsche’s value premises

Will to power

          Nietzsche concludes that there are no objective values and that men can thus choose whatever values they like. He has very strong values and unites all the qualities he admires into a single concept: will to power. It becomes the criteria by which he judges all values. That which furthers will to power is good; that which negates will to power is bad. Values such as reason, passion, egoism, and instinct are all aspects of will to power.

           Nietzsche is not necessarily in contradiction for choosing a supreme value. Moral relativism does not mean that an individual cannot choose personal values, even supreme values. A first value, by definition, can have no justification. Therefore, will to power needs no justification. We can only decide whether will to power is to our taste as a first value.

          This makes it easy to get a first impression of Nietzsche's philosophy. If will to power is to your taste and is acceptable as a supreme value, there may be grounds for a deeper analysis of Nietzsche's philosophy. If not, then the superman and other aspects of Nietzsche's constructive philosophy will not be acceptable and there may be no point in proceeding further.

Will to power as an absolute value

          Will to power becomes more than just a personal value for Nietzsche; it becomes a moral prescription. Those who have weak will to power are sickly, diseased, decadent, passive, guilty, and resentful. Nietzsche implies not only that these values are not to his taste, but that they are wrong and in error. Will to power acquires an objective and prescriptive status that is inconsistent with moral relativism. Although Nietzsche accepts that values are relative, he seems to forget this when criticizing philosophies with negative will to power. His critiques are vigorous and dogmatic.

          Nietzsche criticizes the inferior values and moralities of the rest of mankind but does not say that everyone should strive to become supermen. Only a small elite has strong will to power and is capable of understanding his writings. If will to power is a prescriptive value, it is only for the small minority who have the potential of the superman. Although he glorifies will to power as the best value possible, it is not a universal prescriptive value.

          Nietzsche's harsh criticism is thus not necessarily inconsistent with his moral relativism; rather, it is the result of it. Relativism allows him to reject values not to his taste. He just does this more vigorously than most. For our purposes, we are not concerned with what Nietzsche is criticizing, but with what he is proposing. His critical writings may often be unsound but we can ignore them if they are diachronic to his constructive philosophy.

Vagueness

          Nietzsche's concept of will to power is vague and poorly defined. It is an amalgamation of all the qualities that are to his taste. How does one determine which values are aspects of will to power? If will to power is simply everything that Nietzsche instinctively admires then there can be no objective criteria for discovering aspects of will to power.

          Furthermore, it is difficult to determine the hierarchy of importance between different values. For example, which is the greater value: pride or inquisitiveness? Nietzsche's only criterion for answering such questions is instinct.

Instinct and objective values

          Nietzsche says that instinct is the best source for values. This implies that there are some objective values which instinct is capable of discovering. If values are subjective, there is no reason why instinct is superior to any other source for values.         

Diachronic methods

          Nietzsche tries to justify some values by looking at their genealogy. He looks for the source of values to determine if the values are good or bad. He is fond of looking back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. They had strong will to power; therefore, their values must be good.

          This genealogical method is unsound for two reasons. First, since values are subjective, they can have no rational justification. Nietzsche’s attempt to give a quasi-justification to his values by looking at their source is an appeal to authority. His reasoning is as follows: The ancients share my values; the ancients were admirable; therefore, my values must be admirable. Values cannot be justified by genealogy.

          Second, the genealogical method is by definition diachronic. It compares values over two or more time periods. The source of a value has no philosophical relevance. There are no inherent values in reality waiting to be discovered. Once one has a value, other values can be synchronically derived from it. It is not necessary to go back to other times and places to discover values. All Nietzsche accomplishes is a historical study of the evolution of values. This may be interesting but it has no philosophical relevance.

          In the end, it does not matter how Nietzsche arrives at his values. Whether he chooses them at random, by instinct, or by genealogy is irrelevant. In a synchronic analysis, all that matters are the values themselves. We can thus ignore his genealogical justifications as diachronic to our purposes. All that is matters is that Nietzsche chooses a primary value, will to power, and that he derives all his other values from this one value.

Nietzsche’s factual premises

Let us now turn to the factual premises implied by Nietzsche's philosophy.

Will to power is the source of all human motivation

          Will to power is not just a value, but a factual conclusion about human psychology. Nietzsche reduces all of human motivation to this one force. A person's will to power will determine the values he chooses and the life he leads. People with strong will to power will choose positive values and people with weak will to power will choose decadent ones.

Atheism

          Nietzsche rejects God and all religious and mystical explications of existence. He does not attempt to justify or prove atheism. Since the idea of God is absurd and unthinkable, he assumes atheism as the more plausible premise.

Values are subjective

          If God does not exist, there can be no objective values. Values are created by individuals and are thus subjective and relative.

Life has no objective meaning or purpose

          Again, atheism implies that there is no objective meaning or purpose inherent in life. Without God, where could these come from? Reason cannot take the place of God. It is beyond the power of reason to deduce any objective meaning to life.

Good and evil are meaningless concepts

          There is no such thing as good or evil. People invent these concepts and project them on to the world. Reality simply exists. It is neither good nor bad. All attempts to project value judgments on reality are false. Life is ultimately meaningless and so too are concepts of good and evil.

The superman is beyond good and evil

          The superman does not believe in good or evil and does not feel bound by society's laws. Good and evil are concepts created by society to suppress individuals. The superman is not constrained by society or its morality.

Life cannot be justified

          Is life worth living? This question is as old as philosophy but reason cannot provide an answer. Life has no objective purpose or value and the question itself is meaningless. The correct question according to Nietzsche is simply, “What say ye to life: yea or nay?” To try to justify life is pointless. Therefore, do you approach life with a positive or a negative attitude? The individual must simply affirm or deny life. Nietzsche says yes.

“God is dead.”

          This is one of Nietzsche's most famous statements. One sees it on the lavatory wall:

                              God is dead!  signed, Nietzsche

          And underneath is often written:

                              Nietzsche is dead!!  signed, God

          The death of God is not a metaphysical statement about the existence of God. It is a sociological conclusion. Religion affects people’s beliefs and actions and shapes their world outlook. The psychological, sociological, and historical impact religion has had on the world is enormous. It does not matter that God does not exist. He has had a physical existence because of people's belief in Him.

          “God is dead” really means “belief in God is dead.” In modern times, people no longer believe in religion and realize that God is an absurd concept. Nietzsche says that he is the first prophet of the death of God and that over the next 200 years religion will gradually disappear.

An age of nihilism is upon us

          Nietzsche defines nihilism as a profound negative psychological reaction to meaninglessness and the void, which leads to apathy and anti-social behavior. Nietzsche does not say that nihilism is justified nor desirable, only that it will happen because people with weak will to power, no longer having anything to believe in, will react negatively to life.

The superman is joyous at the death of God

          People should be joyous at God's death because this gives them complete freedom to choose values, create their own meaning and purpose, and act as they like. The superman is not possible as long as God is alive; therefore, the superman is glad God is dead.

Will to power is the opposite of nihilism

          Nihilism is the negation of life. Will to power is an affirmation of life. The superman recognizes that objective values are not possible, but he still has strong values, a positive outlook, and goals to achieve. This is the opposite of nihilism.        

Free will is not absolute

          Belief in free will leads to false notions of responsibility, guilt, and punishment. If a person has free will, then he is ultimately responsible for his actions. Without free will there can be no responsibility or guilt and no grounds for punishment. The wolf is not evil. He acts according to his nature and has no power to do otherwise. Much of human action is instinctive. People cannot change their basic natures. Some are strong; others are weak. So it is with the superman. The superman does not have complete freedom. His actions arise from his strong will to power. He has no freedom to act weakly because this is not part of his nature. Because of this it would be irrational for him to feel guilt.

Eternal recurrence

          History repeats itself eternally and we are fated to relive our lives over and over again. The reasoning behind this is as follows. The universe is composed of a finite amount of energy, matter, and space but there is an infinite amount of time. Unless there is an end state, the same configurations must eventually be repeated. Nietzsche rejects the idea of there being any end state to history. Only if God existed could there be an end to time. As God does not exist, history must repeat itself eternally.

          For people who are unhappy with their existence, the idea of eternal recurrence is a living hell. They will be fated to repeat their miserable lives over and over again. But for the superman, eternal recurrence is an occasion for joy. He is happy that his existence will be repeated eternally.

          Eternal recurrence is intricately linked to Nietzsche's concept of the superman. The religious person often endures a wretched life on earth for the promise of a perfect afterlife in heaven. Eternal recurrence gives the opposite motivation to the atheistic superman. A person's life on earth is his only life and it will be repeated endlessly. Therefore, he better make it a good one. The idea of eternal recurrence is a psychological incentive for the superman to exercise his will to power to the fullest and to make the most of his life.

Truth is interpretive

          If the premises of an argument are true and the logical steps are valid, then the conclusions must be true. There are, however, no objective premises. We can never be sure our premises are true because we do not have objective knowledge of reality. This means there can be no objective truth. Anyone who claims objective truth or knowledge is in error. Interpretation of reality is the best we can achieve. Science shows that our interpretations can be very good but never perfect.

Philosophers should be scientific

          Philosophy is very different from science but philosophers should still have a scientific spirit. They should question everything and accept nothing as given. Science has no absolute facts, only operational facts. They are accepted only so long as they produce no contradictions. Philosophy should have a similar method. There are no absolute truths, only interpretations. Philosophers should accept this and abandon attempts to discover objective truth and knowledge.

All systems are false

          All systems are false because they attempt to constrict reality into preconceived, narrow, conceptual frameworks. No one theory can account for all reality. Any system that makes such a claim must be false. The spirit of philosophy is to question everything and to accept nothing as given. A system, by definition, must start with some self-evident premises that are beyond question. Nothing is self-evident and therefore all systems are unsound. Systematizers lack integrity because the very fact that they have adopted a system means that they are no longer willing to question certain premises.     

“Error is cowardice.”

          People are often afraid to question their worldviews. This cowardice can only lead to false beliefs. Nietzsche says that it is “a very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is the courage for an attack on one's convictions.” It takes courage to question one's most cherished beliefs. It takes courage to live up to the spirit of philosophy.

Morality is self-overcoming

          This is a description of morality, not a value statement. Acting morally means that an individual intentionally overcomes his natural impulses. Morality is defined as self-overcoming, acting not according to impulse but according to values you hold. Self-overcoming is the product of will to power. A great self-overcoming implies a great will to power.

          Nietzsche is not concerned with the values of specific moralities, but with the will to power of a morality. It is meaningless to ask whether a morality is good or bad. One can, however, question whether a morality is strong or weak and whether it is motivated by a strong will to power. The strongest moralities are the result of great will to power and great self-overcoming.

 

Summary of Nietzsche’s factual premises

1.     Will to power is the source of all human motivation.

2.     Atheism

3.     Values are subjective.

4.     Life has no objective meaning or purpose.

5.     Good and evil are meaningless concepts.

6.     The superman is beyond good and evil.

7.     Life cannot be justified.

8.     “God is dead.”

9.     An age of nihilism is upon us.

10. The superman is joyous at the death of god.

11. Will to power is the opposite of nihilism.

12. Free will is not absolute.

13. Eternal recurrence

14. Truth is interpretive.

15. Philosophers should be scientific.

16. All systems are false.

17. “Error is cowardice.”

18. Morality is self-overcoming.

 

Analysis of Nietzsche’s factual premises

          The above list is a non-exhaustive summary of some factual premises of Nietzsche's philosophy. It is difficult to summarize Nietzsche. He is deliberately ambiguous and unsystematic. He does not have one central thesis on which he expands in great detail, but hundreds of ideas, many of which are presented very briefly. Philosophers spend as much time debating what he meant, as they do critically analyzing his philosophy. I have selected some of his views that relate to the central issues we have been looking at such as atheism, values, meaning, purpose, morality, knowledge, and ideals. The goal is to create a working summary of Nietzsche’s premises that can be used as a basis for a more critical look at his philosophy.

Will to power as an absolute explication of human motivation

          Nietzsche tries to explain all of human motivation in terms of a single concept: will to power. Such attempts to squeeze reality into a limited conceptual framework can only be done by bending and distorting reality until it fits the theory. There will be other motivations unaccounted for. Will to power is only one way of looking at human motivation. Other models are possible which can give different perspectives. Will to power as an absolute explanation is false in the same way all systems are false. It is not self-evident that will to power is the sole source of all human motivation.

Vague and shifting meanings of will to power

          Will to power is an elusive concept. Nietzsche makes will to power so all encompassing that it becomes vague and meaningless. I attempt to define it as lust for life but this seems inadequate. It does not capture all of the meaning that Nietzsche intends it to have. Furthermore, the meaning of will to power varies according to the context. Sometimes it is an all-encompassing value; other times it is an absolute explanation of human motivation. In both cases its meaning is broad and ambiguous and this leads to conflicting interpretations of Nietzsche's work.

Superman or super-monster?

          The superman invents his own values, pursues only his own interests, feels no duty toward society, does not care if he hurts people, does not feel bound by laws and morality, and feels superior to everybody else. This is a recipe for a super-monster. Not bound by any moral restraints, the superman could be incredibly destructive to society. Nietzsche does not deny this. He says that just as enlightened people today are not wantonly cruel to the lower animal orders, the superman would not harm others without good reason.

          The superman is the logical implication of Nietzsche’s values taken to their ultimate conclusion and is not an unsound concept. Still, many people find the superman totally unacceptable. The usual objection is that Nietzsche's values are too extreme for their taste. This is an acceptable rejection. There is nothing wrong in rejecting values that are not to your taste. The possibility that the superman may turn out to be a super-monster is not a problem of logic but of taste.

Death of God

          Nietzsche concludes that God is dead. The synchronic approach would be to say that God does not exist and to derive the philosophical implications of this. But Nietzsche starts with the implied premise that “belief in God is dead”. He shows how the loss of divine authority for value and meaning will lead to a nihilistic age. These are not philosophical, but psychological and sociological conclusions. Nietzsche is quite candid about this. He repeatedly calls himself a psychologist and rightfully so. These conclusions may be fascinating but they are diachronic to philosophy.

Joy at God’s death

          Nietzsche says that men should be joyous at the news of God's death and at the prospect of eternal recurrence. This elation is not philosophically justified. The absence of God is a fact and any joy or negativism is simply a psychological reaction to this fact. Neither is philosophically justified.

Attacks on Christianity

          One of Nietzsche's major preoccupations was attacking Christianity. He argues that Christian values are anti-life and the negation of will to power. Nietzsche charts the historical evolution of these values and shows the sociological effects Christianity has had on western civilization and the psychological effects it has on individuals. All of this is fascinating but is completely diachronic to his constructive philosophy. Nietzsche cannot justify will to power and the superman by attacking Christianity. The two are unrelated. If Christian values are corrupt and decadent this does not imply that will to power is good. Since Nietzsche is an atheist, Christianity should be an irrelevant philosophical consideration. Although Nietzsche's critical writings about Christianity make good reading, they are not relevant to his constructive philosophy.

Free will and instinct

          Nietzsche denies that free will is absolute because he does not like what this implies: responsibility and guilt. He argues that much of our action is the result of instinct. But if a part of our actions, no matter how small, is the result of free will, then we must bear a certain degree of responsibility.          

Eternal recurrence and the superman’s motivation

          Given that there is no purpose, meaning, or value to life, why should the superman strive for excellence? Eternal recurrence is Nietzsche response to the problem of nihilism. It is designed to give motivation to the superman. Since his life will be repeated for all eternity, he should make the most of it. The problem is that eternal recurrence still does not provide any objective purpose to life. And without this, there is no philosophical motivation for the superman to strive for excellence.

          Eternal recurrence is at best a dubious psychological imperative to live a good life similar to the promise of heaven or the threat of hell. This is diachronic and philosophically irrelevant. Human motivation is a psychological, not a philosophical concern. Furthermore, the concept of eternal recurrence is similar to the premise of reincarnation, both of which are dubious as factual premises. Nietzsche concludes that because energy, matter and space are finite and time is infinite, configurations must eventually repeat themselves eternally. This is an interesting but implausible theory. Nietzsche argues rightly that without God, time must be infinite. But if, for example, space is also non-finite then an infinite number of configurations for existence are possible. If this is so, then eternal recurrence is unsound.

Conclusions on Nietzsche

          There is much in Nietzsche's writings that is attractive and profound. His analysis of existence is excellent. He starts with atheism and arrives at the conclusions that values and morality are subjective and that there is no objective meaning to life. His description of morality as self-overcoming and his conclusions that truth is interpretive, that all systems are false, and that error is cowardice are also valuable.

          Nietzsche abandons any attempt to justify life. This is the only logical position consistent with atheism. As justification is not possible, he simply says yes to life. This may seem like a philosophical defeat but I think otherwise. I see it as a profound leap for philosophy. Philosophy as a discipline demands that everything be justified. Philosophers are very dissatisfied when confronted with beliefs they cannot justify. The possibility that life is without meaning or justification has bothered them for centuries. Nietzsche is one of the first to accept the meaninglessness of existence as a fact and not as a problem. The void is neither good nor bad. It is merely something that must be accepted if one finds the evidence compelling. Life cannot be justified. We can only say yes or no to it. Nietzsche makes his choice.

          Similarly, Nietzsche determines that values cannot be justified. This again is a factual conclusion, not a problem. Nietzsche adopts will to power and the superman as his values and derives a comprehensive, fairly consistent value system from them. In so doing, Nietzsche takes atheism as far as it can be taken. He accepts its ultimate implications and exercises his freedom to choose values according to his taste. Not all of his values will be to everyone's taste but his values and philosophy are consistent with his atheism.

          Nietzsche is not without faults. He makes some weak attempts to justify his values. His attack on Christian values seems an attempt to show the superiority of his values. His genealogy of values and admiration of instinct as a source of values are also feeble, diachronic attempts at justification. These attempts do not weaken his constructive philosophy of the superman however because values need no justification. The attempts at justification can best be taken as diachronic asides.

          Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence is intriguing but does not succeed in providing a philosophical motivation for the superman. The greater a person's will to power, the more perceptive he will be. The superman will realize more clearly than anyone else that life is meaningless. And even if he says yes to life, how can he motivate himself to strive for excellence knowing that ultimately it is an absurd and meaningless goal? The greater his intellectual will to power, the less motivation he should have.

          There is a multitude of conflicting interpretations of Nietzsche's philosophy. Usually, such ambiguity is the result of poor style and earns the author a place in the wasteland. Nietzsche sees himself, however, as a crusader against the philosophical wasteland. He refers to:

“the level to which all modern philosophy has gradually sunk, the rest of philosophy invites mistrust and displeasure if not mockery and pity. Philosophy reduced to theory of knowledge – a philosophy that never gets beyond the threshold and takes pain to deny itself the right to enter – this is philosophy in its last throes, an end, an agony, something inspiring pity. How could such a philosophy dominate?”

          Again, I cheer whenever I encounter fellow wasteland critics. Nietzsche viewed contemporary philosophy as a wasteland and decided that only by abandoning traditional philosophical methods, could he retain his philosophical spirit.

           Nietzsche is not committed to truth as an ideal. Truth is interpretive and those who believe they have found certainty are deluding themselves. Nietzsche's goal is not to convert people to a system, but to make them think. He does not care if his writings contradict themselves. He thinks this is good. Changing his mind is an indication that he continues to question all premises and retain his philosophical spirit. Philosophers who never contradict themselves must lack integrity. Nietzsche's commitment to the spirit of philosophy compels him to accept that truth is ultimately irrelevant.

          We previously developed criteria for condemning works to the wasteland. When philosophers violate their own principles and goals, then their work merits the wasteland. This criteria is not external, but internal. This makes it easy to judge philosophers and their works. The goal of most philosophers is to use valid methods to discover truth and knowledge and to communicate their findings to others. This gives us two internal criteria for judging their works. Do they, in fact, use valid methods in their quest for truth, and do they succeed in communicating their findings? Method and style are tests for the wasteland.

          Nietzsche, however, is one of the few philosophers who do not necessarily prescribe to the above philosophical ideals. His goal is not truth, but to make people think. Many methods that are invalid for discovering truth may be quite valid for making people think. For example, one can contradict oneself and still succeed in making people think. Similarly, communication is not necessarily his goal. His style cannot therefore be criticized on the grounds that his meaning is often ambiguous. This may be precisely Nietzsche's goal. For these reasons, Nietzsche may not merit the wasteland in the same way that Marx, Rand, and Sartre do. We will look more in the next chapter at style and the wasteland.

 

A Diachronic Chapter

          After studying Marx, Rand, Sartre, and Nietzsche separately, it would be irresistible not to look at them together. In this chapter we will compare and contrast their philosophies. A comparative study, because it does not limit itself to a single work, is the perfect example of a diachronic analysis. Hence, this is a diachronic chapter.

          Diachronic analysis has been portrayed as a major cause of the wasteland. The objection was not that it is an unsound approach leading to false conclusions; rather, it simply does not produce any relevant philosophical information about the theories in question. Doing our own comparative study may reveal more clearly the value and limitations of diachronic analysis.

          Marx, Rand, Sartre, and Nietzsche all start with the premise of atheism but end with very different philosophies. Logically, those who begin with the same premise should arrive at the same conclusions. Our goal in the following comparisons is to discover why their paths diverge so drastically.

 

Marx and Rand

          It is intriguing that two philosophies can start with so much in common and end up being so diametrically opposed. Marx and Rand start with the premise of atheism and with a materialistic outlook on life. Both place high value on reason, logic, work, and progress. Both want to achieve a prosperous, peaceful, and happy society. Why then do they end up with such opposite and incompatible systems?

          My thesis is that the divergence between Rand's and Marx's philosophies can be explained by their choice of different value premises. Marx decides that the good of society is his highest ideal. It becomes the ultimate value from which he derives all his other values. Rand chooses the individual as her highest ideal and the individual's life as the basis for the rest of her values. For her, the good of the individual will always take precedence over the good of society. Marx values the collective over the individual.

          Marx and Rand agree on many things but from this seemingly minor difference of opinion over values, their philosophies diverge drastically. Egoism becomes a value for Rand and a vice for Marx. Economic equality becomes a goal for Marx and an injustice for Rand. Egoism leads Rand to capitalism; economic equality leads Marx to communism. Rand sees collectivism as a potential threat to the individual and wants individual rights to be fully protected. Marx believes the individual can be a threat and that individual rights must occasionally be sacrificed for the good of society.

          In the end communism and objectivism have little in common other than atheism. This is not surprising because each was created as a reaction against the other's values. Marx's communism was motivated by the perceived injustices of individualism and capitalism. Rand's objectivism is a reaction against the collectivism and altruism of communism.

          Even if Rand and Marx agreed on all factual premises, their philosophies would still be totally irreconcilable because of their initial choice of opposing value premises. Values are a matter of taste and reason can never resolve disputes over taste. Since their main disagreement is over values, there are no rational arguments that could justify the superiority of either philosophy.

          This means that meaningful debate is futile. No resolution is possible because they are arguing the wrong issues. The real issue is whether the individual or society is the superior value. Debate over secondary factual premises only confuses the issues and leads to the wasteland.

          This poses a dilemma. To convert people to your system, you must first entice them to accept your values, but there is no rational way to do this. Reason and logic are limited. You can show that a system is confused, internally inconsistent, and self-contradictory and that yours is not. But you can never prove rationally that your values are superior to someone else's. You cannot justify tastes by reason.

          In practice, most ideological debate between proponents of these two philosophies centers on secondary issues. For example, both communists and objectivists value efficiency and material prosperity. They argue about which system is the most efficient and will produce the greatest material abundance. But even if communists were persuaded that objectivism is more efficient, they would still be unlikely to renounce communism. They would discover that other values such as economic equality and social justice are just as important. Even if communism is not efficient, it is still superior. Similarly, if objectivists conceded that communism is more efficient, they would be unlikely to convert because they will realize that other values such as individual rights and freedoms are equally important.

          A common approach in ideological debate is to win over the other side on the basis of a common value. For example, both Rand and Marx say they favor equality and that their system offers true equality. Rand, however, is talking about political equality while Marx wants economic and social equality. As there is no agreement on the definition of equality, the whole debate is futile.

          Both Marx and Rand favor freedom but again they are talking about different freedoms. Rand wants individual freedoms such as free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of the press. Marx wants social freedoms: freedom from want, fear, and exploitation. Marx sees that freedom is a powerful rallying cry. He realizes that communism is opposed to conventional notions of freedom so he redefines the meaning of freedom to suit his purposes. The resulting rhetorical debate is a wasteland because there is no agreement on definition of freedom and because they attempt to use reason and logic to justify the superiority of their values.

          In practice and in theory, debate between ideologies is futile because the contentious issues are usually value premises. Logic is incapable of proving the superiority of one value over another and this means that no ideology can ever prove it has superior values. The only rational approach is to ignore philosophies that do not start with value premises to your taste. Logical arguments cannot overcome objectionable values. There is no debating taste.

 

Rand and Nietzsche

          At first glance the philosophies of Rand and Nietzsche have little in common. Rand despises Nietzsche and considers him a nihilist because of his moral relativism and his renunciation of the concepts of good and evil. Nietzsche for his part would object to Rand's objectivism. All systems are false and Rand's is no exception. Her will to a system reveals a lack of intellectual integrity. She neatly makes the world conform to her absolutist philosophy but in so doing sacrifices truth.

          In spite of these disagreements, their philosophies have much in common. They start with the premise of atheism and share similar values. Both admire individualism, life, egoism, reason, knowledge, strength, intelligence, honesty, and art. Both are hero worshippers and idol-smashers. Both despise religious, mystical, and other-worldly explanations of existence.

           Nietzsche's notion of will to power is not inconsistent with objectivism's first value of one's own life. The values derived from will to power and the individual's life are very similar and result in strong, individualistic philosophies.

          Egoism is good; altruism is bad because it is the negation of life and of will to power. Contemporary society is viewed negatively. Its values and morality are sick, diseased, and decadent. Individualism is good and the collective, or herd as both Rand and Nietzsche call it, is despised. Democracy and socialism are evil because they allow the collective to violate individual rights. Rand and Nietzsche view life and the world in a very positive light. Their terminology is different but they both say yes to life.

          Nietzsche's concept of the superman is also found in Rand. The protagonists in her novels (in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in particular) are perfect examples of Nietzsche’s superman. They are intelligent, rational, self-confident, ambitious, creative, honest, and passionate. They stand alone in opposition to the collective will. They do not feel guilt. They know they are right. They know they will succeed. They have incredible physical, intellectual, psychological, and sexual strength. They have self-restraint. They have will to power par excellence. Nietzsche would admire them.

          Criticism of the philosophies of Rand and Nietzsche usually stems from a common concern. Nietzsche's superman could easily turn into a super-monster. Nietzsche is totally unconcerned about the harm his superman could do to society. Rand's uncharitable, laissez-faire capitalism shows a similar disregard for poor and unsuccessful people. Both of their philosophies could conceivably lead to scenarios where the lower levels of society live in miserable and wretched conditions. Nietzsche's society could be subjugated by the super-monster; Rand's by super-capitalists.

          Nietzsche and Rand have similar values and ideals but are still completely opposed to each other's philosophy. Their major disagreement is not over values but over the scope and limitations of human knowledge. The dispute is over a single issue: the possibility of objectivity. Belief in objectivity leads Rand to an ideological system. Nietzsche concludes that objectivity is not possible and that therefore all systems are false. This dispute over one factual premise leads them to irreconcilable philosophies.

          Analysis of factual premises is well within the scope of logic but there still may not be sufficient rational grounds to reconcile their philosophies. Objectivity is a metaphysical concept. Like God, it is not something that can be proven by human experience. Logic deals with the relationships between premises but it cannot always prove that an individual premise is true or false. In this case we can only decide which view is more plausible and assume it as a working premise. Rand decides that objectivity is plausible; Nietzsche thinks it is not.

 

Nietzsche and Sartre

          Nietzsche is viewed by many to be a precursor of the modern existentialism for which Sartre was a spokesman. Their philosophies have much in common. Both start with the premise of atheism and derive similar conclusions that there are no absolute or objective values and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.

          The central issue is how the individual, knowing that life has no objective value or purpose, will face his existence. The lack of meaning and value should have an enormous psychological impact. Nietzsche predicts an age of nihilism where disillusioned theists will react with apathy or negative, anti-social behavior. Sartre says that the individual, when faced with the void and the need to make choices, will experience fear, dread, anguish, and nausea.

          The problem for both Nietzsche and Sartre is whether the void is all there is. Must they accept nihilism and nausea as the ultimate conclusion of atheism, or can they go beyond this point to something more positive?

          Sartre develops the concept of authenticity. People have complete freedom to create their own values and essence. The exercise of one's freedom is what is important. It does not matter what values one chooses, so long as the individual actively chooses them. To be authentic is to choose. Sartre decides that, without any justification or rational guideline, the individual must strive to be authentic.

          Nietzsche also concludes that no justification is possible for life. The individual must simply affirm or deny it. Both Nietzsche and Sartre have similar responses to the void in that they recognize the need to abandon reason for the moment, to go beyond justification, and simply make a choice. Sartre and Nietzsche are often accused of being irrationalists but this is not a valid criticism. The recognition of the limits of reason is a supreme act of reason.

          Will to power is not incompatible with authenticity. Nietzsche's superman is the authentic individual par excellence. He faces the void, chooses his own values, and creates his own essence. People with a strong will to power choose, people with a weak will to power do not. The superman differs from the authentic man only in that he does not feel anguish, dread, or guilt.

          Sartre's and Nietzsche's positions, while not identical, are not necessarily inconsistent. They proceed from the premise of atheism but have different psychological perspectives. Sartre's emphasis is on freedom. Freedom is the essential condition of man and becomes Sartre's most important value. Nietzsche's emphasis is on will to power. Will to power is a factual premise about human psychology that attempts to explain all human motivation. Nietzsche makes it his ideal and supreme value.

          Nietzsche does not agree that human freedom is absolute. People have free will up to a point but there is always a part of their nature which is innate. Thus, although he might include the notions of choosing and authenticity as aspects of will to power, he does not accept freedom as a value. Lacking freedom, the superman cannot feel guilt, anguish or responsibility. Sartre, for his part, might find aspects of will to power to be valuable but of lesser importance than freedom.

          Ultimately, the difference in Sartre's and Nietzsche's hierarchies of values accounts for the different directions their philosophies take. Sartre is concerned primarily with the psychological act of choosing values. Their actual content is irrelevant. Nietzsche goes beyond this point by actually choosing values and developing his philosophy of the superman.

 

Marx and Rand vs Sartre and Nietzsche

          For our final comparison, the philosophies of Marx and Rand will be placed in opposition to those of Sartre and Nietzsche. All four start with the premise of atheism, yet Marx and Rand conclude that objective knowledge and values are possible and end with all encompassing systems, while Sartre and Nietzsche conclude that objectivity is not possible and reject all systems. The first two end with social visions of the ideal society while the latter are concerned only with the individual's approach to his own existence.

          My thesis is that Marx's and Rand's analysis of atheism is shallower than that of Sartre and Nietzsche. The order of the four case study chapters was determined not chronologically but by the subtlety of their approach to atheism. Marx and Rand accept atheism as being self-evident but neither follows it to its ultimate conclusions. In fact, no conclusions at all are derived from atheism. Atheism is ardently affirmed but is mostly diachronic to their theses.

          Communism and objectivism are essentially socio/politico/economic theories. Atheism sets the necessary preconditions for their philosophies in that the rejection of God leads to a materialistic world-view but it is not essential to support their social and political vision. Religious people who accept society as their greatest value may, without any great contradiction, accept the ideology of communism. There are in fact many communists who believe in God. The fact that atheism is not a necessary precondition for accepting the communist social vision indicates that atheism is diachronic to communism. Similarly, a religious person who accepts his own life as his greatest value may not be in any great contradiction if he accepts objectivism.

          Atheism, however, is an essential, synchronic starting premise for Sartre and Nietzsche. From atheism they conclude that life has no objective purpose or meaning and that there are no objective values. Atheism is the foundation on which they construct their philosophies.

          Rand and Marx are social philosophers in that they are both trying to create the ideal society. Even though Rand says she values the individual over society, hers is still a social vision. She is still trying to create a perfect society where individualism will be protected. Objective values logically lead to a social vision. If a value is true then everyone should accept and conform to it.

          Nietzsche and Sartre on the other hand are not concerned about social philosophy. Since values are subjective, philosophy can only be relevant for an individual and not for all society. They are concerned only with how the individual faces his own existence. Their analysis of atheism leads them to subjective values and this necessarily results in an emphasis on the individual.

          Marx and Rand accept objective knowledge on the grounds of common sense: it appears that we can know reality; Sartre and Nietzsche reject it as implausible. Sartre and Nietzsche’s position is more consistent with our analysis of atheism which concluded that, without God, objective knowledge defined as certainty is not possible.

Diachronic philosophy

          These comparisons are intriguing. It is interesting how much these philosophies have in common, but even more surprising how seemingly minor premise disagreements can lead to such opposite conclusions.

          What is not surprising, however, is how little we gain from these diachronic comparisons. We did not discover any new information that was not covered in the synchronic chapters. We may have found out interesting information about the philosophers, the genealogy of their philosophies, and how their philosophies compare and differ with each other but this cannot give us any better understanding of their philosophy.

          Let us look closer at some of these diachronic comparisons to see why this is the case. I was motivated to write this chapter by a genuine fascination about how these atheistic philosophies are related. But in rereading it, my diachronic alarm bells go off and I bristle with almost every line I read. Here are some of my objections.

          “Rand thinks Nietzsche was a nihilist.” “Nietzsche would have objected to Rand's will to a system.” “Marx and Rand agree that work, industrialization, progress, reason, and logic are values.” Statements such as these are irrelevant. Who cares what a philosopher thought or would have thought about his colleagues if he were alive? All through these comparisons the emphasis is shifted from the work to the philosopher. Marx thinks this; Sartre thinks that. This is biography. We find out all about the person but nothing synchronic about their philosophy. Statements such as these are examples of the cult of the philosopher. They set up the philosopher as an authority figure. We do not find out anything about the philosophy, only about the philosopher. It is irrelevant what Rand and Nietzsche would have thought about each other.

          “Communism and objectivism owe their genesis to each other. Communism is a reaction against capitalism; Objectivism is a reaction against collectivism.” “Nietzsche is viewed by many to be a precursor of modern existentialism.” These are quotes from this chapter. The genealogy of a philosophy or its psychological motivation is irrelevant and diachronic. How and why a theory arose does not give any new synchronic information. It satisfies our psychological curiosity but provides no relevant philosophical insight. We could still understand a theory perfectly without it. This information may be of interest to historians and political scientists, but it is not philosophy.

          “Sartre and Nietzsche are often accused of being irrationalists...” “Nietzsche is viewed by many to be a precursor of modern existentialism.” Phrases like “Many think...”, “It is generally accepted that...”, and “Most agree that...” are diachronic. The use of tags of approval or disapproval is a subtle appeal to authority. The writer attempts to convince us that his ideas have more force because others agree with him. By referring to other philosophers, the writer shows how his work is a part of the great conversation. Allusion to others who agree or disagree with you is by definition diachronic. Who cares what “some” or “many” people think. The synchronic writer just says what he thinks.

          In the above paragraph, I mention that some people think Sartre and Nietzsche are irrationalists only to immediately refute it. This is a common stylistic device. It is considered a part of being rigorous to respond to possible critics, but it does nothing to advance the writer's thesis. If I do not agree with their view or think it relevant, why bring it up at all? It is diachronic to present opposing views only to shoot them down. Synchronically, it is sufficient to say, “Sartre and Nietzsche were not irrationalists”.

          “Rand's protagonists are all supermen”. “The superman is really an example of an authentic individual”. These are two of our diachronic conclusions. Finding similarities between philosophies is always fun, but it provides no new information about the theories. It is not a philosophical, but a literary exercise.

          The stated goal of this chapter was to discover how philosophies with so much in common could end up so diametrically opposed. I present a thesis that explains the divergence: Rand and Marx choose different absolute values and this leads them to opposite ideologies. Nietzsche and Rand arrive at different philosophies because of a disagreement over factual premises relating to the possibility of objectivity. These explanations provide some diachronic insights about how the philosophies are related but give no new information about the individual philosophies.

          Comparative analysis is a very common approach to philosophy. Few writers can discuss a subject without alluding to others who have also written about it. Instead of exploring new and unknown frontiers, philosophy becomes a comparative study of the known. Philosophy becomes a literary exercise, a philological search for people who agree with you and a refutation of those who do not.

          Looking back to the previous case study chapters I see that I am no exception to this practice. I cheer and quote Rand and Nietzsche when they attack philosophy as a wasteland. These quotes provide no synchronic support to my thesis yet I cannot resist including them. My search for fellow wasteland critics reveals that I have succumbed to the cult of the philosopher. These quotes are appeals to authority figures who apparently agree with me. Having such company provides comfort by giving a sense of fraternity with others in the great conversation.

          The diachronic method is not necessarily without value. I am only opposed to it when it poses as philosophy. If the goal is to find historical, psychological, or sociological information about a theory then a diachronic analysis may be perfectly acceptable. But if the goal is to gain a better understanding of a theory and to discover its implications, then the diachronic approach will be of no use.

          The synchronic approach is to analyze the premises, arguments, and conclusions of a work and consider their plausibility and implications. It is not crucially important that your interpretation completely correspond with what the writer meant to say. For example, many readers will disagree with my interpretations of Marx, Rand, Sartre, and Nietzsche. This is not important. Even if I do not accurately represent Marx's ideas, what about the ideas I do present? If readers are concerned only that my interpretation is accurate, then they have missed the point. They are victims of the cult of the philosopher. It is the ideas, not the thinkers that matter.

          Philosophy is more than just trying to come to a perfect understanding of a philosopher. Philosophy is foremost about ideas. If readers succeed in understanding a philosopher completely but are not intrigued by his ideas, then they have not benefited. If, on the other hand, readers totally misinterpret a work but are inspired by new ideas, then they have profited philosophically.

 

Ideology and Religion

Absolutism: the root of ideology

          In our case studies of Marx and Rand, we concluded that communism and objectivism consider all their factual and value premises to be objectively true. It is precisely because of this that they become ideologies. Once a person adopts factual premises about the world and chooses values to believe in, it is very easy to develop these into a philosophical and political worldview. When all premises are considered to be absolute, it is very difficult not to arrive at an absolute system or ideology. If values are objective, then everyone should believe in and obey them. Those who do not are either mistaken or evil. Objective values lead not to a personal morality but to absolute moral prescriptions for all of society. This results in an absolute social vision.

          If all communist or objectivist conclusions were true, then it would be logical for everyone to strive to achieve their goals. If these philosophies really did have the recipe for human happiness, it would make sense to be radical, fanatical, and even revolutionary. The end would justify the means. Compromise would be unacceptable. It would be logical for communists or objectivists to take any necessary action to achieve their social vision.

          The thesis here is that absolute values and absolute factual premises lead to ideology and that ideology very often results in intolerance, repression, and extremism. These are the defining elements of ideology. Persons who are “certain” they are right and “know” that everyone else is wrong are not open to compromise or tolerance. Possessing the meaning of existence and the secret to human happiness, they have a duty to help others who mistakenly persist in falsehoods. Extreme actions are justified in order to achieve their social vision. Those who resist the social vision are dangerous and must not be tolerated. They just do not understand or appreciate what is in their best interests. Objective values lead to extremism and fanaticism simply because it would be illogical to be tolerant of false beliefs and values.

Religion as ideology

          Most religions are ideologies. They have an all-encompassing worldview. They have absolute values. They have absolute prescriptions on how people should live their lives. Their adherents are certain of their faith and believe their worldview and values are correct and that all opposing viewpoints are wrong. Everything is black or white. There are no gray areas of doubt or uncertainty.

Theism and fundamentalism

          Fundamentalism is prevalent in most religions and this sometimes leads to fanaticism. Just as there are ideological zealots, there are also religious extremists holding intolerant, inflexible, violent and revolutionary views. Religious wars, inquisitions, pogroms, crusades, witch-hunts and all manners of atrocities have taken place throughout history in spite of the messages of love, peace, and tolerance of many religions. Events often inflame passions and transform moderate theists into intolerant zealots. Religious persecution, intolerance, and inhumanity continue in modern times.

          Moderate religious people often apologize by saying that this kind of extremism is not truly representative of religion. These apologists are mistaken. Fundamentalism and fanaticism are the logical conclusion of religious belief. If God exists, then nothing else should rival his importance. Believers should act in accordance with whatever their particular religion prescribes as a good, moral and religious life. And if someone truly accepts a religion along with all its dogma, then any action that is consistent with its moral laws or commandments would be justifiable.

          Not all theists are fundamentalists. Many hold strong beliefs and values without wanting to impose them on the entire world. Most tolerate other viewpoints and are open to a certain degree of compromise. My thesis, however, is that absolute religious values lead to fundamentalism, not moderation and tolerance. If God’s laws are absolute, then sacrificing or compromising them for lesser worldly values does not make sense. If heretics and unbelievers are either mistaken or evil, then they should not be tolerated. Perhaps fundamentalists should apologize by saying that, in compromising God’s absolute values, moderates are not truly representative of religion.

Atheists and ideology

          Aabsolute values are inconsistent with atheism as atheism implies that only personal, subjective values are possible. This may be one of the reasons one does not see many evangelical atheists going door to door handing out literature or preaching atheism on television and street corners. Atheists are often passionate about their beliefs but rarely resort to violence in the name of atheism.

          Lacking absolute values imposed by religion, atheists are less susceptible but not immune to fanaticism. If they believe their values are absolute, they are still prone to ideology. Many countries embraced communism in the 20^th century. Atheism was part of the communist ideological dogma. Communist regimes were intolerant of opposition and institutionalized brutal violence and repression against perceived opponents in a way very similar to repression that has been perpetrated by religion throughout history. Communist and religious zealots have always had the best of intentions. They have social and moral visions which they are certain are correct and which they wanted to impose on the world. Convinced they are acting in the best interests of God or society, they justify violence as an acceptable means for achieving their ends. The point is that fanaticism and intolerance are not uniquely religious phenomena. Rather, religion taken to the extreme results in ideology. And fanaticism and intolerance are the logical results of ideology.

Diachronic comments

          The diachronic comparisons of Marx, Rand, Sartre and Nietzsche show how absolute values can lead to ideology and social visions and how relative values tend to lead to quieter individualistic philosophies. People who accept that their values are subjective are usually less inclined to impose their beliefs on others. The links between religion, ideology, fundamentalism and intolerance are interesting but we must remember that this is a psychological and sociological analysis. It is philosophically irrelevant how people arrive at their beliefs and diachronic in that it does not provide any new philosophical insights into atheism.

 

The stylistic wasteland

          In the second part of this diachronic chapter we will look closer at the writing styles of Marx, Rand, Sartre and Nietzsche.

          Philosophers all have particular ideas, theories, and conclusions they want to present to others. Style is the way in which an idea is argued and communicated. Looking at a philosopher’s style of exposition as opposed to the ideas being expressed is a diachronic endeavor. Thus, our diachronic chapter continues.

          We intuitively know that some styles are valid and that others are not. Style and method are closely linked. As long as philosophy has no universally accepted method or purpose, then it can have no prescriptive writing style that every philosopher must follow. There is no definitive way of excluding philosophers from using a particular style in philosophic exposition. As a result, many philosophers use writing styles that their peers find unacceptable.

          Poor style has two manifestations: confused and poorly written works in which the ideas are not clearly communicated and works which use philosophically invalid means of convincing. This provides a quasi-objective criterion for judging style and for condemning some writings to the wasteland. If a writer has a goal and the style he uses accomplishes it, we can conclude that the style is valid and acceptable.

          Most philosophers want to communicate their findings and to convince with justification. Communicating and convincing are not always the same thing. Often we come across writings which are confused, overly complex, or in some other way so poor that no one can understand what the writer means to say. Instead of analyzing his philosophy, critics are reduced to debating which interpretation of his work is correct. If writers fail to communicate their ideas to their intended audience, then their works probably belongs in the wasteland.   

          A writer may communicate his ideas but fail to convince. There are many ways of convincing. The usual means is logic: premises and arguments that lead to irrefutable conclusions. This is considered a valid way of convincing. But other ways of convincing such as rhetoric, appeal to emotion, appeal to religious or intellectual authorities, the use of irony, sarcasm, satire, ridicule, propaganda, and lies are often just as effective. These are seen everywhere in daily life in politics and advertising but are considered unsound and inferior to logic. Philosophers want to convince, but with justification. They want to establish truths, not falsehoods. Rhetorical devices are unacceptable because they can just as easily convince us of falsehoods. Commitment to the ideal of truth usually means that one is also committed to reason and logic. Style is thus not just a means of communicating; it is also closely related to method. Just as there are questionable philosophical methods, there are also dubious styles of persuasion.

          The use of rhetorical styles appears frequently in philosophical writings. For some philosophers, the end justifies the means. They are so sure of their thesis that they see nothing wrong with using unsound styles to convince us of it. Rhetorical devices are irresistible just because they are so powerful. Unfortunately, they lead to the wasteland.

          Stylistically, our four philosophers are an interesting group because they use many non-traditional philosophical styles of exposition. Sartre and Rand are novelists, Marx is a pamphleteer, and Nietzsche writes in aphorisms. Are these acceptable styles of philosophical argumentation? Let us look at the styles of each of our four philosophers.

Marx

          Marx's goal is to convert others to his communist philosophy. His arguments convince many people but there are always some who are not swayed by his reasoning. Marx is thus faced with a dilemma. He believes communism to be true and universally valid. He is convinced the world would be a better place if everyone embraced it. But how does he convince people who are not swayed by logic? In advocating the superiority of communism, he often resorts to invalid means of persuasion. Parts of The Communist Manifesto, for example, are blatant rhetoric. It begins with the lines: “A specter is haunting Europe -- the specter of Communism.” and ends with, “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!”

          This is an appeal to emotions. In addition to synchronic argument, Marx attempts to justify his thesis by rhetorical appeals to emotion. For Marx the end justifies the means. He believes his theories are true and wants others to accept them, even if for the wrong reasons. To convince people, Marx often uses rhetoric instead of logical argument. In so doing his commitment to truth is sacrificed for his belief in his system.

          Marx's ideas are clearly presented and he communicates them well. His use of rhetorical styles, however, raises questions. In the end, Marx no doubt wins some converts not initially impressed with his rational arguments but he still fails to convince everybody. Rhetoric will fail, just as reason does, to convince those who do not find communist values to their taste.

          The fact that certain writings are stylistic wastelands does not necessarily refute a thesis. Poor style is not proof that a theory is unsound, but it is a good indication. When confronted with invalid styles of convincing it is necessary to look closely at the arguments behind all the rhetoric to discover if there are any synchronic arguments that could support the thesis. At times we must simply suspend our judgment until we find some other work that better clarifies the thesis.

Rand

          Rand has the same dilemma as Marx. She is convinced that objectivism is true and universally valid for everyone. She wants to convince with justification but knows that traditional synchronic reasoning will not convert everyone to her philosophy. Some people are simply immune to logic. Fiction presents itself as an alternate means of persuasion.

          A fictional dramatization can be a compelling way of convincing. It has an emotional vividness that logic can never achieve and appeals to the general population in a way that a rigorous philosophical essay cannot. The goal of systematic philosophers is to convince as many people as possible and fiction offers the widest audience.

          In Rand's best novel, Atlas Shrugged, she has two goals. First, she wants to discredit the ideals of collectivism and altruism. Just as logical analysis refutes by showing the contradictions of an argument, literature refutes by satire, irony, ridicule, parody, caricature, and other such devices. Literary absurdity can be even more damaging than logical absurdity. Unfortunately, although literature can be an ideal means of persuasion, it is not a philosophically valid style because it can just as easily convince us of falsehoods.

          Rand's second goal is to promote her objectivist and capitalist philosophy. To this end, she includes traditional synchronic arguments in her novels. This has two effects. As literature, her novels suffer from the imposition of rigorous argumentation on a fictional format. The presence of long philosophical speeches weakens the works artistically. Secondly, the mixture of synchronic arguments and fiction still does not make the novel a valid philosophical form.

          Rand's novels communicate beautifully. They show that a work of fiction can contain a synchronic philosophical argument. Philosophy would be a joy if all of its works were so readable. Unfortunately, her philosophy is surrounded by irrelevant, diachronic baggage. The actual reasoning, when separated from the fictional context, may be quite sound but the work as a whole is still stylistically flawed. If a conclusion is true but the reasoning is wrong, this does not redeem the argument. The use of half valid and half invalid styles does not produce sound philosophy. If a theory is presented by invalid styles of persuasion, then the whole work may belong in the wasteland. It is irrelevant whether or not the theory is true.

          Fiction is the ultimate diachronic style. The goal is not brevity and elimination of all non-essentials, but to create as elaborate a context as possible. As literature, philosophical novels may be masterpieces, but as philosophy, they belong in the wasteland. Fiction provides a good forum for presenting philosophical ideas but the reader should be suspicious. Why is the philosopher resorting to such a style? It is not proof that the thesis is unsound but it is a good indication.

          This is an unhappy conclusion because I enjoy fiction. To be entertained by philosophy is refreshing. There is nothing wrong with philosophical novels. As a literary form, they are perfectly acceptable. If the goal is just to present certain philosophical ideas for contemplation, then fiction can be an ideal style. Rand's commitment to a system means that she does not just want to present ideas for discussion; she wants to present conclusions that people will be compelled to accept. She presents her novels as valid justifications of her theories. Using fiction, however, to prove a philosophical theory is an unsound method.

Sartre

          Sartre also rebels against the philosophical establishment by promoting philosophical fiction. His theory is that logical analysis can never capture the full philosophical impact of nothingness and the void and that literature can be a more effective medium for this.

          Sartre is correct up to a point. Fiction can be an ideal means for portraying the psychological reaction of a person to the void of existence. But the results will be psychological conclusions. Fiction is not a valid method for expressing the philosophical implications of existentialism because there are none. The void is a simple fact, no more. Man's psychological reaction to the void is philosophically irrelevant. Logical analysis is thus sufficient for capturing all the philosophical implications of the void and a resort to fiction is neither necessary, nor valid.

          Rand's and Sartre's novels may be great literature containing profound philosophical ideas, but this does not change the fact that fiction is not a valid philosophical style. Fiction is useful for presenting ideas and for providing a perspective for looking at the world but it cannot justify philosophical conclusions. Unfortunately, just as good philosophy can be an artistic wasteland, great literature can be a philosophical wasteland.

Nietzsche

          Nietzsche's style of writing is unique among philosophers. He is not of the school of rigor and unimpassioned, synchronic analysis. He puts forward his views assertively, even dogmatically. It does not matter if they are unaccompanied by any argument or justification. He scorns and ridicules views that do not coincide with his values. His preferred style is the aphorism, a short paragraph expressing an idea. Nietzsche presents a problem, employs a little wit, states his conclusion, and then quickly moves on to some other theme. The reader is left to determine the line of reasoning that would support the conclusion. Quite often the reasoning is not obvious or presupposes familiarity with other aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy.

          Nietzsche is intentionally ambiguous. He loves puns with multiple meanings. He writes in riddles and paradoxes. He is not concerned that he sometimes contradicts himself. In fact he is proud of it. It is not surprising there are so many interpretations of Nietzsche. If one is selective, one can “prove” that he meant just about anything. Nietzsche's works do not always succeed at communication, nor do they always use valid styles of persuasion. Nietzsche would seem to a candidate for the stylistic wasteland.

          Nietzsche, however, may not meet all of our wasteland criteria. He says his goal is not truth, nor is it to promote any philosophical system. Instead, he wants only to make people think. His style of writing fulfills this goal admirably. If his goal is not necessarily truth, then no styles are forbidden to him. We were only able to declare some styles invalid on the assumption that truth was the ultimate goal. For Nietzsche's stated goals, his style is perfectly rational and effective.

          Can we criticize Nietzsche for rejecting truth as an ideal? Nietzsche does not sacrifice his philosophical spirit or inquisitiveness as he calls it. In fact, he carries this spirit to its logical conclusion. Reason compels him to accept that truth is not possible. The most humans can achieve is interpretation. Furthermore, since truth is impossible, all philosophy that purports to end in truth is self-delusion. By rejecting the possibility of truth, he decides that he must also reject styles that purport to result in truth. This does not mean that he commits himself to pursuing falsehoods. He simply redefines his goal. His aim is to make people think and to use any method that will achieve this. He is very successful even if he is frequently misinterpreted. For this reason, Nietzsche may escape the stylistic wasteland.

Invalid styles of persuasion

          All four of our philosophers are guilty of using rhetorical methods at the expense of truth. They feel that their conclusions can be justified by using philosophically invalid styles of persuasion. Only Nietzsche gets off on a technicality, as he is not committed to the ideal of truth.

          But what if Marx, for example, was right and communism is the only correct system that will bring happiness to all mankind? This would justify all means of persuasion. It would not matter how people became convinced as long as they converted to communism. Unfortunately we cannot have it both ways. We cannot remain committed to the quest for truth if we resort to invalid styles of persuasion. Marx is committed not to truth, but to his system and in so doing he betrays his philosophical spirit and ends in the wasteland.

          Rand and Marx commit the very crimes for which they criticize religion so strongly. Theists are convinced of the truth of God and believe this justifies them in using philosophically invalid means of convincing. They rely on faith and appeals to authority (the bible) and use all manner of rhetoric to spread their beliefs. Rand and Marx are convinced that the truth of their systems justifies the use of similar invalid means of persuasion. The fact that Rand and Marx find synchronic reasoning insufficient for expressing their theories is a good indication that their philosophies may be unsound.

Stylistic wasteland criteria

          I have defined certain criteria by which writings become part of the wasteland. One of these is self-inconsistency. If the author's goal is to discover truth and knowledge, yet his work produces contradictions, then it is self-inconsistent. If his goal is to communicate his ideas but he fails at this, then again it is self-inconsistent. Such works are a wasteland because they fail to satisfy their own stated or implied objectives.

          Judging works by their own standards provides a quasi-objective criterion for evaluating philosophical writings. This is not a completely satisfactory solution. Determining the writer's goal in order to know whether we can accept his work or condemn it to the wasteland is an extremely diachronic task. The writer's goals or intentions are irrelevant. All that really matters are the reader's goals. If the reader's goal is truth and understanding, then the writings of Nietzsche who does not subscribe to these ideals may be a wasteland.

          This undermines any attempt at quasi-objective wasteland criteria. A reader might not care that a work is self-inconsistent and violates its own standards if it is in accordance with his own personal criteria. Other readers may reject works that are consistent and well argued if they reject essential value premises.

          The philosophical wasteland is a subjective concept. In the end, it is not the writer, but the reader that matters. Individual readers may each have their own personal criteria for the wasteland. For atheists, most religious works are wastelands just because the writers are not committed to philosophically valid means of persuasion. The atheist's wasteland, however, may be the theist's source of wisdom and vice versa.

          If the reader has a different goal, perhaps to be entertained or to learn more about the evolution of philosophical thought so that he can participate in and understand the great conversation, then diachronic works might not be a wasteland. There is nothing wrong in studying the history, biography and psychology of philosophy, as long as one realizes this is not the same as doing philosophy.

          Philosophy is perhaps the only discipline where such a subjective and cavalier attitude is possible for summarily rejecting theories and works. It would be inconceivable to do this in other disciplines. The sciences certainly do not allow scientists to reject their colleagues’ writings simply because they are not to their taste or are poorly written. All scientific theories must be presented and evaluated in accordance with scientific method. Without any definitive method for rejecting, however, philosophy must remain a wasteland.

          Stylistic analysis is a diachronic endeavor in that it provides no new synchronic information about the philosophies in question. An unfortunate conclusion is that unsound styles are usually the most interesting ones. They tend to result when intense passion overpowers a writer’s more conservative philosophical instincts. Philosophical passion is a psychological phenomenon. Even if a philosopher succeeds in discovering truth and knowledge, it is philosophically unsound to project an emotional response into his work. This is an unhappy conclusion for some because, without passion, philosophy becomes a sterile endeavor. And if we eliminate all the unsound styles resulting from these passions, philosophy becomes much less interesting.

Conclusions on Atheism and Philosophy

          This book was motivated by a strong philosophical curiosity about values, meaning, and purpose. These issues have a profound affect on the way we live our lives and are, for me, the starting point of philosophy. I look at the various answers philosophies give and none satisfy. They are all based on false assumptions, religious or otherwise, or end up with irrelevant conclusions that do not come close to answering the important questions. Some atheistic philosophies seem appealing but on closer analysis fall short of the mark. Marx, Rand, Sartre, and Nietzsche err to varying degrees by deriving values from atheism. This is simply not possible. Atheists can choose values but they cannot derive values from atheism.

          Atheism is not a religion. It does not give a reason or purpose to life. It cannot tell us what is right and wrong, or how we should live our lives. It is a factual premise. It is either true or false but it has no value content. All of atheism's implications are likewise only factual premises. Values cannot be derived from facts.

The Wasteland: A pejorative and value-ridden concept

          The philosophical wasteland is a recurring theme throughout this book. It is rhetoric in that it conveys a visual image that evokes a negative emotional response. It would be more accurate to say that something is false, unsound, dubious, or implausible rather than call it a wasteland. The wasteland is also a shifting concept. It results from unsound methods, diachronic style, and theistic and other implausible premises. Sometimes it is even referred to as a sterile wasteland where philosophy, stripped of all the diachronic baggage and theistic premises, becomes so emasculated that nothing much of interest remains. Use of a rhetorical concept such as the wasteland does nothing to prove a thesis and is a questionable philosophical means for convincing.

          So why, after advocating the elimination of diachronic premises and unsound styles of convincing, do I resort to using an emotional term like the wasteland? Does this not go against everything The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland stands for? The answer is that I use the term because I can. There is nothing in philosophy to stop me. This is perverse but it is precisely the point. Rhetoric is frowned upon but is nevertheless commonly employed in philosophical works. Nothing is forbidden when there is no universal method for rejecting such dubious stylistic devices.

Nihilism

          If we accept atheism, then ultimately existence is irrational. There is no logical reason why we exist, and no justification for any value we choose, goal we strive for, or action we take. In a sense nihilism is the ultimate implication of atheism. I do not mean a pejorative nihilism that advocates apathy, negativism, or violence. These reactions all imply negative value judgments derived from atheism. Atheism implies a neutral nihilism in that existence is meaningless, values are a matter of taste, and ultimately truth is irrelevant. These are the facts of existence. They are neither good nor bad and they do not lead to any particular values or course of action.

Human knowledge

          Philosophy has historically been a quest for truth and knowledge. But is knowledge about reality possible? Can we ever really know anything? These are factual questions. If we define linguistically what “knowledge” and “to know” are to signify, it becomes a simpler matter of determining whether we can ever know anything according to the given definition. The problem is that there is little agreement on a definition of knowledge. If knowledge is defined as certainty, then we would have to conclude that human knowledge is not possible. We can never know anything beyond a doubt because our sense perceptions are suspect.

          Practical knowledge is the alternative. In practical terms we can have knowledge that approaches but never quite reaches certainty. Such a definition of knowledge, however, is distasteful to those who seek certainty because if objective knowledge is not possible then all systems are unsound.

          Systematizers who are locked into a particular dogma are determined to show that objective knowledge is possible. They argue over definitions of knowledge in the vain hope that by somehow justifying knowledge they can justify philosophy. Instead of following premises to unknown conclusions, they seek the unknown premises that would justify their pre-held conclusions.

Irrelevance of truth and knowledge

          The great conversation is a dialectical succession of ascending theories. Some view philosophy as progress, as the gradual accumulation of knowledge over time. But has philosophy ever produced anything lasting that we can truly believe in? Are there any philosophical truths that endure?           I sometimes see philosophy as a progression toward more and more complex falsehoods. We exchange the simple superstitions of the past for more sophisticated errors. Without method, philosophy leads to the wasteland because in the end, complex, esoteric, abstruse falsehoods are no better than simple superstitions.

          The greatest threat to philosophy is not that truth and knowledge are impossible, but that they are irrelevant. Since life is ultimately meaningless, truth and knowledge cannot matter. Philosophically, it makes no difference whether we base our lives on truth or delusion. Truth and knowledge may help us achieve our goals but they are not ends in themselves. Philosophy is a passion, an obsession even, for the irrelevant. When we redefine philosophy in this way as a quest for that which is meaningless and irrelevant, it becomes more apparent why it leads to a wasteland. Historically, philosophy is an attempt to discover objective knowledge which is impossible, to discover truths which are irrelevant, and to discover values and meaning where none exist.

          This is why I seldom feel missionary about atheism. Why try to convince people of the non-existence of God? The ideal of truth could be the only motivation, but truth itself is ultimately irrelevant. I offer atheism and the void of meaninglessness. Religion offers delusion and false meaning. Perhaps many people would be happier with the latter. The philosopher’s quest for truth is no superior to any other purpose we create for our lives.

The wasteland

          Is all philosophy a wasteland? The goal of The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland was to follow atheism to its logical conclusions. But in analyzing atheism, it became more and more apparent that it is not just religion, but philosophy itself, which is the wasteland. For the atheist, any philosophy that starts with the premise of God and religion must end in the wasteland. And any philosophy starting with the premise of atheism can go little further than to state that there is no meaning and purpose to life and that values are subjective. This severely limits the scope of philosophy. Philosophy is either a wasteland or a dead end. The moment atheistic philosophers get interesting (Marx, Rand, and Sartre), they become unsound.

The examined life

          Socrates posed the question, “Is the unexamined life worth living?” I would reply, “Is the examined life worth living?” People who examine existence will only find meaninglessness and the void. Therefore, from a psychological perspective, the unexamined life may be more worth living. Non-inquisitive people may be happier. It is easy to envy people so immersed in life that metaphysical questions never arise. Some people accept the void and freely choose values and goals for their life; others live a life based on delusion and fantasy. Neither option is philosophically superior. Ignorance may be bliss.

          Is suicide the answer? It is an option but not the logical conclusion of an examined life. As a course of action it would be neither more nor less justified than any other course. The option of suicide, however, implies that the void is being treated as a problem rather than as a simple fact of existence.

The synchronic approach

          The conclusions of The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland are based on the premise of atheism. If there is a God, then perhaps philosophy is not a wasteland. I would argue, however, that prevalent diachronic approaches to philosophy are flawed regardless of whether or not one accepts atheism. I advocate using a synchronic approach to philosophy but this in no way redeems philosophy from the wasteland. As an approach it clears up some of the clutter of the wasteland and improves the style of philosophical writing and the way in which philosophical ideas are communicated. But it is still no substitute for a universally accepted methodology. Furthermore, just as truth and knowledge and philosophy itself are ultimately meaningless in the great non-scheme of existence, so too is the synchronic approach. I can give no justification why people should bother to employ it. The best I can say that is if truth and understanding are your goals, then the synchronic approach would be a valuable tool.

The future of philosophy

Rejection of philosophic method

          In the beginning, philosophy was everything. Over time, many of its branches formed their own separate disciplines. The birth of the natural and social sciences always began with the rejection of the rules and customs of the great conversation. The benefit of having them take over some of philosophy's traditional domain was the introduction of established goals to achieve, a method by which to proceed, and the abandonment of vain attempts to establish objective truths. The sciences recognized their limitations and all progressed in leaps and bounds as soon as they made the break with philosophy and began to observe and explain natural and social phenomena without making value judgments.

Social sciences

          Political science is the study of governments and political systems. Sociology observes and analyzes the customs, values, moralities and political practices of different societies and cultures. The birth of the social sciences was a revolution that resulted from abandoning attempts to introduce a normative ethical content into a factual analysis. As soon as we make value judgments by advocating or prescribing particular values, moralities or political systems, we enter the unsound realm of philosophy. Similarly, psychology, history, and economics study their subject matter from a factual perspective without making value judgments about the phenomena they observe.

Atheistic philosophy

          Given the premise of atheism, what is the legitimate realm of philosophical inquiry? If there is no god, if values are subjective, if existence is ultimately meaningless, and if practical rather than objective knowledge is the best we can hope to achieve, then we can significantly redefine the nature and scope of philosophy. We can exclude all philosophy that attempts to discover objective meaning, objective values, or objective knowledge. This would relegate a wide variety of religious, metaphysical, and normative philosophy to the wasteland.

          Abandoning the quest for objectivity would allow us to attempt to establish for the first time universally accepted goals for philosophy and a methodology by which to achieve them. The goal of philosophy would no longer be to discover the meaning of life (there is none) nor to discover objective values, morality and knowledge. Once we abandon the quest for objective meaning, values and knowledge it becomes apparent that scientific method is applicable to most philosophical matters.

Further shrinking philosophy’s domain

          Perhaps it is time for atheists to break from contemporary philosophy as the natural and social sciences did in the past and form a new atheistic philosophical discipline. Only by divorcing themselves from the wasteland and redefining philosophy’s goals and methods can atheists escape the futility of present philosophy. Only by excluding theists, irrationalists and invalid methods and styles can philosophy be returned to credibility. The scope and method of atheistic philosophy would be much more modest. Let us take a look at how this might look.

Social Sciences

          Much of philosophy could be taken over and dealt with more methodically by other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, history, economics, and political science. For example, Sartre's existentialism when stripped of its unsound value content is essentially psychology. Nietzsche's genealogy of morals is history, and his writings about the death of God is sociology. When separated from their prescriptive ethical content, Marx's and Rand's theories are economic, sociological, political, and historical. These can all be dealt with by scientific method. The field of logic is essentially a mathematical science.

Epistemology

          The study of human knowledge, as a branch of philosophy, is a questionable endeavor because there is no method for coming to any universally accepted conclusions. But why can epistemological issues not be dealt with scientifically? For example, if we reject the possibility of knowledge as certainty, then we can use scientific method as an approach for making hypotheses about the nature, scope, and limitations of knowledge and act on our theories so long as they do not produce contradictions. We would never achieve an objective definition of knowledge, only working hypotheses that would be discarded if they produced contradictions. As epistemology deals with factual premises about knowledge, scientific method may be the most pragmatic approach for dealing with knowledge issues.

Ethics as aesthetics

          Since values are subjective, there are no grounds for justifying the superiority of any value over another. Ethics is unsound when it attempts to prescribe particular values. Philosophy cannot, with any rational justification, tell you what to value or how to live your life. The study of values can only be justified from sociological, historical, or psychological, or aesthetical perspectives.

          It is not necessarily unsound to debate values and moralities. Criticism of art, music, cuisine, theatre and cinema is an established literary form. We recognize that these are all issues of taste and that there are no absolute objective criteria for our appreciation or criticism. Because the arts play such a large role in our lives, we like to talk about them. Ethics and morality also play a large role in our lives and there is much public debate over the merits of particular values. Values are tastes and this means that ethics is essentially a branch of aesthetics. Aesthetics can only make subjective critiques of its subject matter. Ethics has the same limitations. Philosophers would be wise to abandon any attempt to justify values and to limit themselves to an aesthetical analysis of values. Aesthetics could and perhaps should eventually become a literary discipline separate from philosophy.

Metaphysical questions

          A common argument by theists is that science is limited and cannot answer questions about meaning and purpose in life. It cannot tell us why we are here, how we should live our lives, and what values to believe in. These are things that cannot be empirically tested so we must therefore rely on faith. This reasoning is flawed in several respects. If science cannot answer these questions, it does not follow that faith must be an acceptable alternative. It could be that neither science nor faith can answer these questions.

          My thesis, however, is that science can answer all metaphysical questions about meaning, purpose and values in life. The existence of God is a factual issue that is within the realm of scientific method. Science can show that religious belief is based on superstition, that it relies on dubious methods, and that there is no credible and empirically verifiable evidence for the existence of God. Scientific method is to take the simplest, most plausible explanation and adopt it as an operational premise. Science does not produce facts or absolute knowledge, only working models which are relied upon as long as they do not produce contradictions. Science can never “prove” that God does not exist but it can hypothesize that God’s existence is implausible and use this as a working premise.

          The premise that God does not exist, as we have seen in our analysis of atheism, leads to the conclusion that there is no purpose or meaning to life and that all values are personal and subjective. This responds to the theist challenge that science cannot answer metaphysical questions about meaning, purpose and values. It can. It tells us that God’s existence is implausible and that therefore there are no divine purpose or meaning to life or objective values waiting to be discovered.

The end of philosophy

          From an atheistic perspective, all of philosophy can be dealt with by using scientific method for analysis of factual issues and through a literary/aesthetical analysis of value issues. Philosophy could be done away with altogether by dividing its subject matter into separate and distinct disciplines. This has already happened to a certain extent with the formation of natural and social sciences and literary disciplines. Philosophy continues to exist but in a much diminished capacity. It calls itself the foundation upon which all the sciences are built but in many ways it is their antithesis. The sciences owe their birth to rejection of philosophic method (or lack of method) in favor of scientific method. If the remaining credible branches of philosophy joined with other social and natural sciences or literary and aesthetic disciplines, all that would remain would be unsound elements such as ideology, religion, mysticism, and irrationalism. The continued divestiture of philosophy’s subject matter would only make it more apparent that philosophy, as it exists today, is a wasteland.

The philosophical wasteland

          At the start of this book the question was posed: Is philosophy a great conversation or a wasteland? As philosophy has no universal method, it cannot seriously qualify as a discipline. Before starting, I had to create my own method. As there is no prescribed procedure for proceeding in such studies, the best I could hope is that other philosophers would accept my approach. Instead of benefiting from philosophy's discipline, I have to proceed by making my own knowing that in the end it would be as unsound as all the rest.

          What does this study of atheism accomplish? Its only conclusions are negative: there is no objective meaning, purpose, or value to life. It gives no philosophical revelations about how we should live. Atheism, unlike religion or ideology, does not lead to any particular belief system, worldview, or course of action. Its implications are limited and lead only to a few conclusions about the meaninglessness of existence and the subjective nature of values.

          Normative philosophy that prescribes values is unsound and leads to ideology and religion. But if we eliminate value content from philosophy, our conclusions have little relevance to our daily lives. Reducing philosophy to the study of non-value premises would eliminate all the passion associated with philosophy and turn it into a sterile discipline. For atheists, philosophy as it exists today is either unsound or a sterile endeavor.

          The results achieved by our atheistic analysis of philosophy have been subtractive rather than additive. We have not constructed a philosophy or morality for atheists to live by but we have cleared away much of the clutter of the philosophical wasteland. This is no small accomplishment. Even though this is subtractive endeavor, we must still consider the results as positive.

The future of atheistic philosophy

          Atheism has far ranging implications for philosophy. The adoption of atheism as a factual premise allows us to simplify and redefine the nature and scope of philosophy and could very easily lead to a universal method by which to proceed. Quite simply, if God does not exist, then scientific method would be applicable to all philosophical matters with the exception of values and tastes which would be dealt with by way of a literary/aesthetical analysis. Every discipline begins with certain factual assumptions about the nature and scope of its subject matter and with the adoption of a method. The challenge is to determine whether atheism can lead to an independent philosophical discipline that would transcend the wasteland.

          Philosophy has lagged behind while almost every other discipline has undergone an explosive growth of discovery. Can atheism break from philosophy and achieve such a revolution? Is it feasible for atheists to sweep the wasteland clear and start afresh by redefining philosophy’s purpose and goals, agreeing on a methodology, and becoming a fully independent discipline? This is the question I leave you with.

          As initially stated, the primary goal of The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophic Wasteland is to promote critical thinking and serve as a guide for atheists and others to philosophic inquiry. By exposing the philosophical wasteland and revealing the problems intrinsic to philosophy, there will be a clearer starting field for proceeding with philosophic inquiry. Armed with three powerful tools to reject (taste, implausibility, and logic), the atheist is set to do battle in the philosophical wasteland. Atheists of the world go forth, question everything, discover new philosophical frontiers, transcend the wasteland and, above all, think critically.

 

Postscript

          If you wish to make any comments about this book or about atheism and philosophy in general, check out the Wasteland Discussion Forum and participate in the great conversation or contact me directly. I look forward to your comments.

          This is version 1.0 of the book dated November 2000. I will be revising the book further and welcome all critiques and suggestions on how to improve it.

Shareware books

          Remember that The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland is a shareware book. It is distributed freely on the understanding that if you like it, you are requested to pay whatever you feel it is worth. 

How shareware works

How to pay

          This book is copyrighted but may be distributed freely in electronic or hard copy format provided it is not altered, changed or abridged in any way.

Randal Bradley

theauthor@philosophicalwasteland.com