Posted on 05/11/2013 12:12:17 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
I just bought an e-reader which I should have done long ago. Your advice is appreciated.
Yup. I can say a lot of nice things about Rand, but she certainly had flaws. If I had to choose between these two thinkers, I would trust that Lewis was closer to the real Truth. Not a close competition. But Rand did understand human nature better than some folks.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
CS Lewis is also the gateway drug that leads a lot of people to Chesterton :-)
They in fact have trouble distinguishing between giving to the poor and giving to the state. Mainly because of the constant flood of lies and brainwashing from the government-controlled media. Can you blame them? Partially perhaps. Pity would be more appropriate.
“...both seem to have come from the same fountain—an atheistic one—...”
Godless souls ALWAYS manifest their human anger. Truth was breathed into the dust of Men at the dawn of time and it cannot be denied.
I love ‘em both, but both have their “issues”.
As a believing Christian, my heart aches for Rand, because true capitalism can’t flourish unless it is underpinned by Christian ethics.
The recent tragedy in Bangladesh, where over 1000 workers were killed in a factory collapse is a perfect example. When the profit motive (which is NOT particularly evil in and of itself) is not constrained by the “Golden Rule”, it deteriorates into exploitation, corruption, and greed. (and finally...death!)
The Judeo/Christian Ethic is NOT incompatible with free enterprise. It is, in fact, essential to its proper functioning.
The best and most profitable businesses are those where the owners treat their workers as fellow human beings, and not just parts of the machine.
I realize, of course, that Rand was raised in the USSR, as a secular Jew. I can’t even imagine what her childhood was like.
JMO.
You sound like me..I loved her novels but would have never thought to become some devotee of her ‘teachings’ like a cult follower or research her life, etc.
The 1960’s and 70’s was full of authors and thinkers with cult followings...I just never had much use for stuff like that. In fact..whenever I sensed an author like that, I would run in the opposite direction...lol. I remember my hippie older sister coming home with a book called..’Be Here Now’ by some moron. I remember picking it up and thinking it was the stupidest book I had ever read...lol. Hippies everywhere carted it around like a bible or something.
That does not mean I have to live my life for those people. But I am a better person for helping give other people the opportunity to improve their lives. The opportunity though, and not simply living my life for them or taking from other people and giving to people who have no desire to improve their lot. Therefore, I'll never be a Rand follower. She can be admired for her fierce opposition to the totalitarian state, but her love of complete selfishness does not appeal to me.
Interesting. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" was the first step in my conversion to Christianity, a life changer, and I wouldn't claim "Atlas Shrugged" altered my life it was a strong influence in my thinking.
I’ve read just about all of Ayn Rand, including her first novella, “We,” which was published in a pulp science fiction magazine I bought as a kid. (It was about an Orwellian society, based on the Soviet Union, from whose language the word “I” had been eliminated completely.)
She had pretty good insights into the problems of Communism and socialism. And I enjoyed most of her work. But the problem was that she was, indeed, without any moral principles whatever. Pure libertarian, not conservative in any meaningful sense. It’s all me, me, me, me.
Certainly worth reading, but not someone you want to actually take your political ideals from. From the vehemence of those comments about C.S. Lewis, I would guess that his writings prodded her conscience a bit, and she didn’t appreciate that AT ALL.
OldNavyVet, nothing personal, but....LOL!!! ROTFL!
The Earth, for instance, came into being about 4.6 billion years ago, long before Jesus appeared ... prompting a question. Why did God wait so long to send humans (and only humans) a savior?
See, you make the mistake of believing what men tell you instead of what Jesus said. He declared in Matthew 19:4 that God made man at the beginning. Those words of Jesus clearly contradict the theory of evolution, so we know it can't be right.
There was no pain, suffering, bloodshed, or death until after the Fall. Evolution claims billions of years of death and bloodshed before man ever showed up. Again, both concepts can't be right. You have to choose one.
Don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into a crevo one, so that's my piece.
There's so much wrong here that the only way to tackle it is in reverse order, so here goes:
“Why did God wait so long to send humans (and only humans) a savior?”
Might I recommend “Out of the Silent Planet” by C.S. Lewis?
I might of disliked Paul too before he “saw the light” as it were. That and hiding from his pack of anti Christian “dragoons” who were seeking to arrest Christians at the time of his conversion.
She was stammering to pray.
Amusing, and probably accurate way of putting it. In my own case, it was simultaneous.
"Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty. At the crossroads of the choice between “I know” and “They say,” he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think. Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others. His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him." - Ayn Rand
I was disappointed to learn of her other moral failings...she seemed in them to be a supremely selfish (and not selfish in a morally good sense) person...her breaking of trust with her spouse, for instance, was not an ideal behavior.
That is disappointing, and it will lead to a lonely state in life. I wonder if the selfishness is linked to her being a writer - and a good and successful one. Writers are often selfish, it goes with the territory.
Ayn Rand was right about the world...up to a point. But CS Lewis found the ultimate truth. Ayn Rand died in denial.
I’ve read most of their books, and Rand makes a good case for refuting Progressivism but her dream world is a harsh place of misery for most. That’s why her books refute progressives so easily. Because they envision the same world of misery, only with different masters and slaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.