Posted on 03/27/2010 11:06:47 PM PDT by razorbacks198
First, she denied she was a libertarian although her political philosophy resembles it. She denied she was a Christian although her characters often behaved as if there were a God's-eye view - the "objective" in "objectivism" - of the world, and although she did not ostensibly believe in an eternal human soul she constantly cited it within the narrative of Atlas Shrugged both as if it were personal and something that transcended death. The duck is walking and quacking like a duck but logically it couldn't be, and so to her it wasn't. Best of luck with that.
I don't believe her grasp of Christian doctrine was as complete as she thought it was, certainly not up to the standards with which she approached Aristotle, for one. In Galt's interminable speech she cites a doctrine of Original Sin that leads Galt to reject Christianity as shamanism. Unfortunately it isn't a particularly accurate rendition of that thorny topic.
What I'm suggesting is that within Atlas Shrugged is a marvelously rich dynamic between the dramatic narrative, which most resembles a man-is-God, God-is-dead Nietzschean philosophy, and her own philosophy, patterned closely after Aristotle. And we must remember that Aristotle concluded that God must exist. Rand did not agree with him that there must be an eternal Unmoved Mover, preferring to transfer this role to man after Nietzsche (she makes this explicit in her fourth chapter, entitled "The Immovable Movers"). I don't think either Nietzsche or Aristotle would have appreciated the juxtaposition.
Were I pressed for a guess, it would be that Rand's characters were brave, high-minded, idealistic revolutionaries, but a bit silly theologically. That would go for Rand herself as well. Just my $0.02.
So you think there is something "pure" out there?.....Anywhere?
Give me a name of a pure capitalist. Not even Ayn Rand was pure at anything. Christianity gives us our moral system. What morals does an atheist have? I may be speaking out of turn,( I haven't studied Ayn Rand as some have), but how much does an objectivist give to the poor? Are they expecting the others to give? I know they don't expect the government to give. Does this pure capitalist feed a starving person, or just say they shouldn't have squandered their money. Objectivism may work in a sterile closed, perfect environment, but I can't seem to find one of those. I'm sure the socialists in power now feel they are doing the "lord's" work by stealing my money and deciding who gets how much, but it's still not a perfect world. OTOH, Haiti has an earthquake and money comes pouring out of American pockets to help a corrupt backwards country ,.....just because. If you have no soul, that stuff doesn't happen. As a Christian, who can turn their back, just because you don't agree with their culture or politics? There must be a moral base for capitalism to work and freedom to exist. I just don't believe an atheist can be consistent to some made up code to live by. I've seen their treatment of babies and will never believe they have a soul. If they have no mercy for babies, what makes anyone think they will every have mercy on me. They would crush people like worms because their moral code required them to be "pure" and keep the books in balance.
Straw man. It speakes of common, not commune.
You brought up the word commune, Not me. The root word of communism is commune. I never said anything about commune, but rather common.
Again, I am proven right.
I concur with what you posted.
Indeed, In the Bible Jesus was never for forced charity or socialism - where the gov’t forces people to give their all or near all to others.
Now, if you have a group of Christians that want to - of their own volition - all agree to pool all their resources together and distribute equally, there is nothing wrong with that and Jesus would not be against it.
They do not. They act in their own interest. This self-interest implies loyalty and fidelity to ones friends and allies. But it is most certainly NOT altruism.
What they object to is the willfully-unproductive thinking that they have the right, by virtue of their existence, to DEMAND the fruits of the labor of the productive.
So... They reject the idea that "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." So do I, and so does Ayn Rand. But since these are Jesus' words (Matt 5:40, Luke 6:29) Christians are expected to do just that.
QED.
(Almost) this very question was asked of Ayn Rand.
Q: "In an Objectivist system, what would happen to the poor?"
A (Rand): "If you want to help them, no one will stop you."
You haven't written anything. You make a charge that Objectivism is left-leaning except for free market capitalism, then fail to back it up in any meaningful way except to repeat it over and over again.
You keep changing the subject, who cares what Ayn did during the civil rights time? I wrote about objectionists I’ve personally observed. Go back to the original post that got your knickers in a knot.
My observations are what I wrote about -
Atheist's are always the ones committing genocide. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, ect,
I doubt you know any “objectionists” since there is no such thing.
You really don’t stop do you?
My original response was that Ayn Rand’s theory is in fact not compatible with Christianity, someone is misunderstanding if they think it is.
I stand with that and I stand with what I have personally observed with objectionists (those who follow the theory of objectivism—if you have another word for it, feel free to use it in your own discussions). Have a good day!
On this we agree.
Objectivists call themselves Objectivists. It is a proper noun.
Atheist's are always the ones committing genocide. Mao, Stalin, Hitler
A selective reading of history that omits The Ottoman Turks, who got things rolling in the Twentieth Century, and long before them The Inquisition, The "Witch" Burners, and all of the Christian kings and queens of Europe. Sorry, but it's Big Government, not religion (or the lack of it) that genocidal murderers have in common.
Hahahahahahahahahaha you are picking on spelling?
No no. I wasn’t clear. I totally agree with you. I was referring to the previous poster. Sorry.
“I was referring to the previous poster. Sorry.”
Well, then so am I. I should have been more careful.
I know you weren’t, but I do get tired of people who know nothing about Rand maligning her.
Thanks for straightening me out.
Hank
Interesting thread. Too bad I always seem to catch these two days after all the fun’s over.
Always fascinates me to see how poorly Rand is understood, especially by those who only know enough to criticize but not enough to really grok what she was saying.
Now, a couple of things that stood out if I can find them on the thread.
“But Ms. Rand was just a person - who at the end of the day believes that money=power, and that power is the goal.”
See, the above doesn’t show an inkling of what Rand’s position on money was.
Then there’s this classic beauty that gets batted around the thread on several occasions.
“Everything else I see is left leaning libertarian”
Not only does this not show an understanding of Objectivism, it doesn’t even show an understanding of Libertarianism. There is no “left leaning libertarian” point of view at all. This is akin to the common misnomer of a “fiscal conservative” and “social liberal” which demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is common between the two.
“Is is possible to be a Christian Objectivist? Why yes, . . .”
Only if you misunderstand Objectivism, otherwise no.
“The nature of altruism really isn’t selfless. Most so called selfless acts have a vested self-interest which causes them not to be altruistic. The kindest thing one can do for another also makes the beneficent individual feel good about himself.”
What you are describing higgmeister isn’t altruism, which Rand made clear was the supposed moral obligation that one put others before self, to sacrifice oneself for others. Having a “vested self-interest” is operating from a rational and not true altruistic position. Altruism is ‘selfless’ in the manner in which Rand wrote about it.
“Atlas Shrugged is a morally bankrupt tome to analyze conservative policies.”
This statement is a classic example of one which that is utterly devoid of any relationship to the issues that Atlas Shrugged addresses. What it was analyzing was so much deeper than ‘conservative policies’ that it was completely lost on this writer. He’s so far off base it makes one chuckle.
“I find much of what Rand tried to teach us in Atlas Shrugged consistent with Natural Law. The same Natural Law spoken of by our Founder’s and the Pope.”
Not only do I agree here, I would say AS is one of the best and clearest definitions of Rights according to Natural Law. It took Locke, John Stuart Mill and all the others of that time and re-stated it so clearly that it couldn’t be missed. Well, except for those who were trying very hard to miss it.
And yes, the Money Speech refutes any defense of any kind of collectivism if carefully read and understood.
(Moving on.)
“I had to look up what altruism meant:
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.”
And if you stick with just the dictionary definitions you will miss Rand’s point, which is the philosophical imperative behind these definitions: that one exists for the sake of others first and foremost, and not for oneself first and foremost. The definitions you quote are based upon an unstated premise which is what Rand identified.
Your father was a moral man within the context of his own understanding because he didn’t force anyone else to do anything against their will, (at least nothing you have mentioned) and did what he did by choice, (which someone else pointed out already).
“When my dad (or I) treat an employee or client right - even to the point of generosity, it is also done with the thought that they’ll treat me well.”
That could be said to fall within the realm of being a “trader” if you get my drift.
(Moving on.)
“I mean if so then then the United States of America should be disbanded being that some of people who wrote the founding documents were evil slave owners. (See how easy such things can be manipulated?)”
I just recently learned of the original Declaration of Independence where Jefferson castigates the King for promoting and imposing the institution of slavery on the colonies. It was removed by the other delegates at the convention. You can still find the original wording on the net. Not all were evil.
“First, she denied she was a libertarian although her political philosophy resembles it.”
The reason why she refused to be termed Libertarian is yet more interesting. It was a rather predominant developing philosophy at the time.
“Give me a name of a pure capitalist. Not even Ayn Rand was pure at anything.”
Back to silliness. Rand was a pure Objectivist. (And thus a pure capitalist.)
“( I haven’t studied Ayn Rand as some have)”
Shows. (So why are you commenting on what you admit you don’t know?)
“There must be a moral base for capitalism to work and freedom to exist.”
Yeah, and Rand explained that but you haven’t studied her work so you don’t know. And your point was . . . ?
Finally, I’ll return to the opener on this.
“My granddaughter sent me this of a young conservative lady defending libertarianism and John Galt, and this person was saying that Jesus can’t go along with Atlas Shrugged. I want to know what a true conservative view is on the two things.”
Well, the proper question would have been to ask what was the Libertarian view on these two things. (Which two?) Notice that everyone got all bollixed up discussing Rand and AS but nobody actually addressed the Libertarian aspect. Interesting, no?
There are really four different issues here: Libertarianism, Objectivism, conservatism and Christianity. They only loosely correlate. Conservatism and Christianity are the closest with Objectivism and Libertarianism off to the side, kind of close.
The blog article you reference isn’t really all that well stated. Well, it is mostly blather. They all get so much wrong that it is hard to take, really. So I wouldn’t consider that a well formed discussion of the issues. There are many more, a whole lot better and clearer out there to pick from.
Oh, and the word Libertarian was never mentioned at all, so I fail to see how that figures into the discussion.
The thing that would interest me is: Why do you want to know? You never said there piggy.
Well, it is late. I’m just posting this, no editing, so I’m flushing any spelling or grammar criticisms, thank you veddy much.
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.