[ 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