Objectivism & Buddhism
I just sent the following to Buddhist author Ken McLeod. He had forwarded me a friend’s cursory “philosophical detection” (from a Buddhist perspective) of Objectivism, along with one or two of his own observations on the subject.
(The passing references to “Andrew and Damian” are to Andrew Schwartz and Damian Moskovitz, who joined me a few weeks ago when I attended one of Ken’s sitting groups in Los Angeles.)
Thanks for forwarding your friend’s comments about Objectivism. The three differences you mention between Objectivism and Buddhism (belief in existence, reliance on reason, and absence of compassion) are each good ones to talk about.
In many respects, your friend has only scratched the surfaces of the differences between Objectivism and Buddhism. Any orthodox advocate of either philosophy would say, without question, that the two are utterly incompatible. In my experience, it takes considerable discrimination, and patience, to piece together the aspects of the two which are actually complementary, rather than antithetical. However, to my eyes—and to Damian and Andrew, from what they’ve told me—there are parts of the two belief systems that can be nicely complementary. Below, I’ll try to sketch a bit about how and why.
One of the chief characteristics of Buddhist philosophy which causes problems for Objectivists is that it is innately pragmatic; its primary purpose is not to uncover truth, but to achieve a goal, which is relief from suffering. Because its chief loyalty is to what works, rather than what is true, the philosophy behind the practices (”self as an illusion,” “reality as relative,” etc.) often becomes rather silly-sounding when subjected to logical analysis. (E.g., “If you have no self, who is talking right now?”) To most Buddhists—accustomed to working in the realm of koans and poetic experiences, and frankly undaunted by contradiction—this is not a problem. But to adherents of any realist philosophy, it’s absolute anathema.
Objectivism, too, has its problems. From what I’ve experienced (and I think Andrew and Damian would sign on for this too, if only loosely), Objectivism offers an incredibly sound theory of reality, the nature of knowledge, and the foundations of ethics and political philosophy. Sometime I can provide you with an outline of the specific principles that seem rock-solid in my mind; but for now, suffice it to say that we find it to be a sound philosophical system, despite some problem areas.
The major value that Objectivism lacks, in my experience, is a theory of personal development. It has little to say about how to stimulate personal growth, cultivate awareness, or achieve lasting happiness. Rand has some choice quotes on each of these subjects, but they are often of a very theoretical, rather than practical, nature. And, frankly, the fruit it bore in her own life is not that appealing for most of us; she died a very bitter and alienated woman.
One of the passages in your book that stuck with me is that, at root, Buddhism is neither a religion nor a philosophy, but rather a set of practices. And to the extent that this is true, the abstract ideas behind the practices are secondary; what is primary is that the practices work to foster personal development and cultivate more fulfilling life experiences.
With this caveat placed upon Buddhist meditation and insight practices, it becomes easier to integrate them with a philosophy of realism. You can benefit, for example, from the insight that the psychological sense-of-self dissipates under close examination of experience, and that the cultivation of this insight can be deeply liberating in one’s personal growth, without signing on for the far more controversial proposition that in fact “there is no self.”
Of course, my purpose here isn’t to work out the details of how Buddhism and Objectivism fit together, but only to sketch broad parameters of how they can be complementary. I welcome any thoughts or questions you have on the subject.
Also, I have a question for you. In your note, you mention being interested in the prospect of common ground between Buddhism and Objectivism. What prospects of common ground appear most obvious to you?
I have always been intrigued by the prospect of cross-pollination between Objectivist and Buddhist adherents, but it’s much easier for me to see across the river from the Objectivist side than to see across the river from the Buddhist side. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject.
I welcome comments from anyone with an interest.
Hmmm...I’m skeptical, but somewhat interested in hearing more about any possible links.
David: To my mind, the chief links lie in the mutual respect for the power of consciousness, from a this-worldly perspective.
In particular, Buddhist meditation has much to teach Objectivists (and any other consciousness-lovers) on the subject of deepening awareness, developing clearer perceptions of reality, and generally achieving greater levels of personal growth and insight.
I’m planning to write an essay on the subject this summer. In the interim, you can bone up by reading my comments on the benefits of meditation, Andrew’s comments on Cultivating Awareness from the relevant chapter in McLeod’s book, and Damian’s comments on the chapter on Dismantling Attachment to Conventional Success.
No doubt, many of the perspectives in Buddhism require expanding one’s willingness to consider alternative viewpoints. But in my experience, it can be most fruitful and rewarding. Hope you enjoy it!
I haven’t read it myself, but I believe Craig Biddle’s Loving Life addresses this subject. Anyone read it?
For some reason, I seem to know a lot of Buddhist Objectivists.
I tend to lean towards Taoism, myself. I don’t much like the “emptiness” and anti-materialism aspects of Taoism, but the rest is great. The celebration of dichotemy (which is not the same as contradiction), the relaxed outlook on life, the pre-scientific understanding of chaos theory, etc. There is a great deal of wisdom to be found there.
A 12-Step saying goes, “Take what you like, and leave the rest!” To say, “Buddha is the only way”, or “Objectivism is the only way” is akin to saying “Jesus is the only way.” The fact is, there are lots of ways, and it’s up to us, as individuals, to discover the best way that leads us to our potential.
The philosophy of buddhism & objectivism resides on the different side of the pole. One advocates altrusim, one advocates individualism. One advocates that one has to drop the conceptual mind to know reality, one advocates that one has to develop conceptual mind to know reality....
A dichotomy of the body-mind is the likely result should one tries to accomodate both philosophy. Any particular reasons for your interest in trying to cross-pollinate the two?
Objectivism needs Buddhism to cut through the shallowness of an unrefined ego. that at once clings to its ignorant understanding of what Ayn Rand read and said, but ends up promoting a conservative, right-wing agenda rather than what she thought and felt.
Now that I’ve written a mindful, I’ll let you contemplate this:
Don’t worship the founder; cultivate your fellow Objectivists to be objective about I, ego, and selfishness.
I thought I was the only person interested in reconciling these two stimulating philosophies. I had actually thought about doing my doctoral thesis on the subject. Perhaps I still will. All the same, I’m glad more people saw the possibilities for reconciliation between what are in my opinion two of the most sound philosophies out there. I’ll be visiting this site again to see what other comments may surface!