Posted on 04/22/2003 5:25:25 PM PDT by RJCogburn
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.
Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.
Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.
Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.
Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.
Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.
Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.
I am not well versed in Rand's philosophy and thus have no useful observations of my own. I am pinging Freeper logos to read your post 161; on a previous thread, logos spoke directly to the issue you raise and thus may have a few remarks that may be helpful to this discussion.
Thanks again!
In three words, "So what?" and "No." Just because Ayn Rand for pity sake (or any other "naturalist, positivist," etc.) didn't believe in anything outside of her personal opinions based upon the arrogant assumption that what is outside her comprehension does not matter to her, it doesn't mean this bears upon me nor my criticism of her castration of human perception. I may and do criticize her fallacies not only based upon her own contradictions, but by comparing it to the accurate understanding which she denied.
You can have it your way, but the Bible makes it clear, the most important thing to you or me, is you and me, and whatever else we should gain, if we loose ourselves, we have lost everything that matters.
I'm at work but have read quickly through this strand in the thread.
Great Scriptures, HK and A-M. Fair, objective interpretation, A-G. I'd also add a fuller context of the quote I gave, in two of the three references to it. It clearly shows that Chirst (ergo, truth) teaches us that a highest objective of doing what is in the interest of what we may gain throughout the course of our earthly life, is futile. I find myself bolding what Jesus said he was to suffer, because it all starts with him, when it comes to man and our earthly life (just as it all culminates in front of him). It's not about you, except in subjection to the Creator/Savior/Judge, in his loving eyes. As such and even then, it is all based upon on Him, always, even for those who concoct systematic fallacies which would obviate him. (BTW, I've left the "h" uncapitalized this time; Jesus being God who became the Son of Man, to serve even through his death and onward as the first who made himself least to anyone willing to be gathered up in love.) Every heartbeat now depends upon God's intentional sustenance, as well as all of eternity.
(Mark 8:31-38) - He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." 34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
(Luke 9:22-27) - And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.< For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
I could also add Paul's statement that he would be willing to suffer Hell, if it could mean his Jewish brothers' and sisters' salvation.
In trying to define Christianity by what is refered to as objectivism, one neither gains Christ, nor objectivity.
Of course, Hank, among other things, this position (feint?) you have taken would deny our need for grace, as Scriptures taught. That very concept refers to our utter dependency upon something greater than our reason (God's surpassing and intentional love).
"You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
It depends on what I've said. Sometimes, that's true. If I say, "forcing children to participate in sex to make child pornography is wrong," and you disagree with me you are either stupid or evil.
By the way, the quotes are from The Autonomist's Notebook, which characterizes itself as, "a semi-satirical collection of aphorisms, epigrams, and comments on politics, philosophy, and religion." You may have taken the quotes a bit too seriously.
If you disliked the quotes, you can probably find some others there you can really hate.
Hank
The map is not the territory. The cartoon picture of God the Father as a cosmic Gandalf walking on a cloud is only a convenient mental image, a symbol for that perfect eternal Something that transcends and maintains the world of pollen, supernovae, and dirty diapers that we see around us -- and a pretty poor symbol at that. God the Father is not a man, does not have facial hair, and does not wear clothing, any more than God the Holy Spirit is actually a pigeon. Our minds are only capable of understanding those things that exist in our physical universe; we can no more conceive God as He Is than an amoeba can understand Dostoyevsky. That's why God the Son took on human form and came to earth -- so that God can be with us as a human being, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
It's really more accurate to think of God as being existence itself, Reality Itself, than to think of Him as something or someone who exists in the way we perceive existence. Without God, there is no existence.
No. It's more correct to say that God is Beauty itself, the ultimate standard by which Beauty is measured. As for His complexity, the answer is no. God simply is -- He is an irreducible Unity, One in Three. As the shma says, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD thy God, the LORD is One."
That's pretty convenient.
Hear Me oh rabble!
There is a mighty and terrible creature who is all places at all times.
His name is Booga-booga.
He knows when you've been bad or good.
So be sure and do as I command.
And if you do not do as I command, I (his special servant) will call down the wrath of Booga-booga upon you and yours.
But do not try to see Booga-booga... for you cannot.
Only I (his special servant) can commune with Booga-booga, so that I might communicate his special plan for you.
Booga-booga tells me he wants you to bring me one-tenth of all that you make, and all that you own, so that I (his special servant) might live in comfort as I divine his special plan for you.
Now go forth and bring me the stuff, before Booga-booga gets angry.
And be sure and tell your kids about Booga-booga too... And
My comment was intentionally limited to the quote you provided, in context, on topic and in no way could it objectively be construed to represent an overriding view, your attempt to frame it as such not withstanding.
By the way, the quotes are from The Autonomist's Notebook, which characterizes itself as, "a semi-satirical collection of aphorisms, epigrams, and comments on politics, philosophy, and religion." You may have taken the quotes a bit too seriously.
Ditto
If you disliked the quotes, you can probably find some others there you can really hate.
I need only visit FR everyday to prove this true...
That is correct, and an excellent observation with regard to some of the nonsense on this thread.
It is, however, a fact Rand herself never seemed to understand, nor do most objectivists today. G. B. Shaw, anything but an objectivist, observed correctly that societies are rotten because the material they are made out of is rotten.
Capitalism and individual liberty are for, and only possible to, those with enough character and ability to be responsible for themselve and ruthlessly honest. Since the majority of mankind is terrified of having to be totally responsible for their own lives, and all believe they have a right to what they have not produced or earned by their own effort, no political system will ever permanently secure real liberty.
If you want personal individual liberty and protection of your property, like all other values, you are responsible for securing them by your own effort. The essential problem with Rand's political philosophy is the subtle mistake of believing liberty can be secured collectively and by contract.
None of this is a problem for most people, however, because the last thing in this world they want is liberty.
Hank
I hold my beliefs as strongly and as passionately, as you hold yours.
If you are secure in your faith, then my ramblings are inconsequential.
If not, maybe not.
Either way, I am what I am.
And you are what you are.
And I consider you friend in spite of our differences.
Yes, and compare this to Rousseau's philosophy - there isn't a dime's worth of difference! Man is born free but is everywhere in chains! Ask Gaugin about the end of an individualistic but amoral philosophy. Ask Robespierre who was his disciple and who based the reign of terror upon it. Without universals as a foundation, all philosophy is dangerous and detrimental to human society. Objectivism is just as dangerous as the communist system she so hated, except in a different sense.
Ayn is dead.
In all honesty, that is a misunderstanding (perhaps intentional, perhaps not) of the philosophy.
It is about the recognition that ALL human action is motivated by the will of the actor. Each and every thing that we do, each and every decision that we make, is motivated by our desire to achieve our own happiness.
Every action.. whether the most seemingly high-minded and self-sacrificial, or the most debaucherous and self-indulgent.
People choose to serve God, or the care for their families, or to donate to charities.... or even to be drunken, lazy good-for-nothing slobs.. because it pleases them to do so. They act without exception, in pursuit of their own happiness.
Now you and I would probably agree, that someone who chooses to indulge self over family, or to value drunkeness over achievement, probably has a pretty corrupt value system. But he nevertheless acts in accordance with his values (however corrupt they may be).
Men can't help acting in accordance with their values, to achieve what they percieve to be their happiness. It's hard wired. It's what we do.
And there is only ONE philosophy which (when applied to politics) allows each and every human being to act in accordance with his own will. That philosophy (regardless of what you call it) recognizes initiated force and fraud as immoral. If every man abstains from the initiation of force or fraud, then all men are free to act in accordance with their own will.
That, in a nutshell, is the rational basis of rights.
We have been over this before. Your system cannot possibly have any universals, e.g. you still have not given me the source of the moral standard that says that initiating force or fraud is wrong. Therefore there is no authority behind your statement other than your own opinion which is no better than mine. Where does this moral principle originate?
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.