“The "benevolent universe" does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man…the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you.”
Since ‘benevolent’ just means ‘kindly, well-disposed’, Rand is telling us that the universe is both well-disposed towards man and indifferent to man. I don’t think we need to belabour the contradiction, since we’re all familiar with Rand’s penchant for investing ordinary words with her own particular spin.
But taking a leaf from her own book: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking…” the more interesting question is why Rand should create a metaphor that pictures the universe as an all-powerful being who is kindly disposed towards man. Equally interesting is the fact that she immediately denies this meaning and substitutes her own special meaning, that ‘benevolent universe’ isn’t just about the universe, but also about man’s attitude to the universe.
What sort of relationship is typified by, on the one hand, a kindly disposition towards man, and on the other, an attitude of conformity and respect? I suspect that in using the phrase ‘benevolent universe’ Rand is – perhaps unconsciously -- importing religious connotations into an atheistic worldview that otherwise denies human beings the comfort of an all-powerful being who takes a special interest in his highest creation.
But she doesn’t want to admit she is doing this, hence the bald-faced attempt to persuade the reader that ‘benevolent universe’ means something other than its plain meaning. Rand is taking two bites of the cherry: by borrowing religious imagery, she smuggles in the reassurance and certainty provided by tradition, while her explicit atheism allows her to play at being a radical.
Brendan
| 
