and Linz.

I like the term auspicious... favourable to.

I wonder though, as a baby and child, do we have some more primitive form of such a belief?

I guess that would be a result of sheer trust.

"I wonder though, as a baby and child, do we have some more primitive form of such a belief?"

Well, that must be a learned response. Pavlov's child?

If, in the hands of a comprachico, a child was electrically shocked every time it savored something delicious, or berated when it smiled, you'd create a human that certainly believed in malevolence, and one whose only object was range of the moment survival, certainly not happiness or hope.

Stephen, quoting Peikoff:

In his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (1991), Peikoff expresses the idea this way: “‘Benevolence’ in this context is not a synonym for kindness; it does not mean that the universe cares about man or wishes to help him. The universe has no desires; it simply is. Man must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. If he does adapt to it, however, then the universe is ‘benevolent’ in another sense: ‘auspicious to human life’. If a man does recognize and adhere to reality, then he can achieve his values in reality; he can and, other things being equal, he will. . . .” (p. 342)

That's it, exactly!!!

To believe that the universe is benevolent in the sense articulated by Peikoff is a rationally justified belief. I wonder though, as a baby and child, do we have some more primitive form of such a belief?

 (There is a non-substantive error in my previous post. I used the word pretensions to convey occasions of pretending, and that is not what the word means.)

Excellent Stephen, your post has cleared up every loose end that I had: it seems I was mainly stumbling over terminology (regarding this particular topic), and that my overall basic premises were sound. Certainly does point to some rather large holes in my reading (it seems Linz was right, this is unexceptional afterall .

This section especially useful: Man must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. If he does adapt to it, however, then the universe is ‘benevolent’ in another sense: ‘auspicious to human life’. If a man does recognize and adhere to reality, then he can achieve his values in reality; he can and, other things being equal, he will. . . .

I'll do a Google later and see if I can pick up a copy of that lecture series somewhere - I've mainly read all of Rand's fiction and should start tackling the essays and other material.

[Mind you, given all this, am I right in concluding that the answer to Claudia's original question, to get the thread back on track, is that she has arrived at the notion of a benevolent universe via reason, so long as the reason is deduced as stated in your quotations? That is, the qualifiers and explication are definitely required, because in this New Agey Age, it would be just as commonplace to view the notion of a benevolent universe in a completely different light, as I suggested below: mysticism, such as of The Secret variety, which could not be further from the Truth. Given this, I feel the language used is clumsy].

It may be good to have before us the standard summary statement of what Rand came to call the benevolent-universe premise. Rand’s fiction displays this conviction many ways.

In his 1976 lecture series The Philosophy of Objectivism, Peikoff included a statement of this premise. Rand examined and concurred with everything he put in those lectures, which were representing her philosophy. This stretch of Lecture 8, as well as the stretch dealing with the opposite premise, the malevolent-universe premise, were transcribed and published in The Ayn Rand Lexicon (Binswanger 1986). These transcriptions square with my own notes from the lectures, which I heard in 1977. Rand was fine with these statements as representing her idea.

Peikoff put Rand’s benevolent-universe premise this way: In Rand’s philosophy, it is recognized that accidents and failures are possible, but they are not the essence of human life. For humans who live by Rand’s morality, the achievement of values is the norm. “Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. . . .

“The ‘benevolent universe’ does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is ‘benevolent’ in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents, you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.”

In his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (1991), Peikoff expresses the idea this way: “‘Benevolence’ in this context is not a synonym for kindness; it does not mean that the universe cares about man or wishes to help him. The universe has no desires; it simply is. Man must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. If he does adapt to it, however, then the universe is ‘benevolent’ in another sense: ‘auspicious to human life’. If a man does recognize and adhere to reality, then he can achieve his values in reality; he can and, other things being equal, he will. . . .” (p. 342)

On the next page, the author adds: “The benevolent-universe premise has nothing to do with ‘optimism’, if this means Leibniz’s idea that ‘all is for the best’. A great many things in the human realm are clearly for the worst. . . .” The corrective to the pretensions of optimism in the sense associated with Leibniz and of the pessimism upheld by Schopenhauer is:  “realism, i.e., the recognition of reality, along with the knowledge that happiness, though scarce, is no miracle.”

Let me mention two further points. Although Rand was a romantic (a romantic realist) in her literature, she was opposed to romantic philosophy (Schelling, Schlegel, Novalis, Schleiermacher, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche). Secondly, one should not rest with summaries. Dig into Rand’s writings, fiction and nonfiction, for full facets and kin of the benevolent-universe premise.

(Claudia, there are a host of people, such as on that other forum you mentioned, whose diurnal song is denigration of Rand’s philosophy. The point of their friendliness towards you and of their discussions with you is to run off that song again and again. Don’t be used.)

Despite Linz's view as to the unexceptional nature of Rand's words on this, it makes little sense to me. I understand the Rand quote regarding the benevolent universe Linz has given on the other thread, though note I've always taken the sentiment expressed in that, and some of your earlier statements, Claudia, to mean that I can mould myself into and toward my dreams by the operation of my mind as it grapples with external reality and tries to bend 'it' toward 'my' will (cognisant that if I hit a brick wall [um, that's reality] with my head it will hurt, but if I hit it with a jack hammer - the operation of my mind bending the hard reality of that wall to my will - I will succeed in bursting through it, that is, I'm succeeding by allowing for the true, real nature of the wall, which exists as such despite my wish it may not be so hard, or that it would be a bit more benevolent toward me), however, that said, I have no point of agreement at all with the first half of your sentence below (which is what I was reacting to on both of our first posts), and the crux of this disagreement then answers the second part (for me) of this same sentence:

I believe in a benevolent universe, but am examining whether my belief comes from a feeling rather than sound reason.

Although saying I have no point of agreement is not quite the point. It's rather I don't understand the notion of 'a benevolent' universe - am I mis-interpreting Rand on this? My opinion would be that given the universe just 'is', then your thinking it benevolent must be a matter of feeling, not reason, moreover, as you accept the universe just is, you've really answered your own question as to being just an expression of a 'wishful' (to dig a little deeper hole) feeling, rather than the product of reason. Again, my specific problem arises because I believe that we make our own destiny, but this is a very active, conscious operation, a matter of mind and will, for if we do nothing, the 'universe' will drop not one tear over the fact that we will die (by starvation at its simplest), because the universe is neither benevolent nor cruel: it just is?

What am I missing here?

To take another tack, to allow the notion of a benevolent universe seems to be making the same mistake that the makers of that dreadful DVD, The Secret, have made: that is, thinking that a benevolent universe will give them their every desire if only they keep thinking on what they want. No, they may get what they want, but only because of the operation of their minds on external reality. They have turned the notion of a benevolent universe back into mysticism of the worst sort, and back to some sort of pantheism.

Benevolent universe: I don't get it at all.

 [Perhaps, regarding the Rand quotation, this is just a matter of words: that quote doesn't refer to a benevolent universe, just to the idea I have stated in my first paragraph above. Or did she somewhere state the notion of a benevolent universe, using that particular terminology? If so, I'd better read it.]

It's not something to get exercised about. Ayn explained what she meant by it, and her explanation is quite unexceptionable. The Barnes crowd would hate it, for sure, since they are malevolent pomowankers.

...meaning by it that if you act as Ross describes, you will succeed, barring accident or disaster.

It still seems an odd coin of phrase. Why not just say the universe is neutral? Benevolence seems a subjective idea.

(As you can probably tell, I'm torn on this issue).

Mark:

I know that the universe is not "disposed" to us in any particular way. It just is what it is.

On the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blogspot, I've been having this discussion (of course they all think the idea is rubbish and have posted it as one of Ayn's silly plays on words).

I believe in a benevolent universe, but am examining whether my belief comes from a feeling rather than sound reason. Hence me posting this in order to nut it out.

I've now had a one and a half hour power cut, on top of the deadlines, so was checking back in to say I'm washed out of participating until at least the weekend, although have seen both Ross and Linz's posts (plus the benevolent universe quotation): I don't believe this forces me to re-examine my premises, but certainly some of the detail, ... which may well lead back to the basic premises, but I don't think so (it does confirm I have difficulties in thinking these areas through). I have to go back to the books again, I think, then will post on it in the future, especially in reference to objectivity verse subjectivity (and the moral issues arising). Sorry to break the thread up like this.

Morality consists of doing what enables us to survive, and that both rationally and happily. The benevolent or malevolent universe premise is mystical and not part of Objectivism.

Objectivism does embrace the "benevolent universe premise," meaning by it that if you act as Ross describes, you will succeed, barring accident or disaster. All things being equal, in other words, success is the norm and failure the exception. Success in attaining one's values is open to anyone who pursues them.

...in saying that you can't ascribe morality, or benevolence (meaning goodwill, or disposed to offering goodwill), to the universe. Hell, if anything, we wage a constant battle against nature to secure our place in it, let alone advance.

Morality consists of doing what enables us to survive, and that both rationally and happily. The benevolent or malevolent universe premise is mystical and not part of Objectivism.

[Damn. I had a series of thoughts, and questions, to Claudia's post above, but when I went to post them they've disappeared into the ether somewhere, and when I arrow back, I simply go back to a blank screen. Webmaster, this has happened twice today, and several times over the last week - is it the site or me?]

I'm now out of time, but will quickly try to reconstruct the first part of my post.

I find the issues of objectivity (reality) and subjectivity (how the machine of my mind views that reality quite uniquely to other individuals), as they relate to Objectivism, often confusing, so will be following this thread.

Claudia, I find your first sentence confusing for the following reasons. I agree the universe is neutral, but from that it follows that it simply 'is': there is no morality involved. Your terminology is almost trying to anthropomorhpise 'the universe: it surely cannot be said in any way to be 'supporting our efforts toward living', and can also not be said to be benevolent toward us? In a sense I'm being pedantic, no doubt, but it does set the context for your second paragraph ...

... shit. I've big deadlines with work, and it's now past 9.30am. I'm going to have to simply post this as a reminder for coming back to it later. Sorry, because I've simply put the first part of my original post up, I've not given you anything of value at all. Will be back, although I hope there will be other posts, as this post raises as many questions for me as I have answers.