Posted on 07/20/2010 6:42:03 AM PDT by marshmallow
Ayn Rand was, above all, a RATIONAL person. Communism, devout mindless religious fanaticism, racism, and compulsive socialism are ALL IRRATIONAL.
It's that simple, really. This country was founded by people that would rather fight to the death than accept a "ruling class". They saw it correctly as slavery.
Today, the country is populated with slave wannabee's. They call themselves progressive democrats. I call them old-fashioned plantation slaves. (or worse, actually...)
State atheism, the suppression or control of traditional religions, is necessary for the totalarian state that doesn't claim legitimacy from a god, since organized religions would compete for the loyalty of the people. Most people need some belief to fulfill them, and that role is normally filled by religion. Communist and other states take advantage of this by suppressing traditional religions and raising the state to the level of the god to be worshipped, creating a political religion. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, all gods of their state religions.
Remember, Buddhism doesn't necessarily have a god either. Buddha thought belief in a creator deity interfered with the path to enlightenment. So while these states may be technically atheist, they are also quite religious in nature.
Atheism is also not necessary for communism. In fact, religious communism has existed on a small scale in various movements for a long time. Remember, the original Plymouth colony was effectively communist, and so were the Diggers of England.
It’s a bad mistake logically to look at one woman who made herself miserable for whatever reason,,,and to conclude that her ideas were flawed.
Like many geniuses, they fly high in their field, and fall badly short in another. Condemning her ideas because of her personal misery would be like “proving” that the ideas of the Church were untrue, by pointing to a molester priest. Neither case of a wreck of a persons life proves a thing about the validity of their beliefs.
To cut to the chase on this: Rand’s philosophy cannot withstand the moral implications of something as simple and natural as having and raising children.
“Funny how an avowed athiest seems to be followed by so many “true believers”.
A very strong point,, especially in the 60s, and when she was at her zenith.
The process which, if not checked, will abolish Man goes on apace among Communists and Democrats no less than among Fascists. The methods may (at first) differ in brutality.
(Back to article)...
The transition, then, from bios to zoe (individual life to personal, spiritualized life; selfishness to love of neighbor) is also the transition from a Culture of Death to a Culture of Life.
Zoe, on the other hand, is shared life, life that transcends the individual and allows participation in a broader, higher, and richer life.
Examine what neighbor, what collective, what culture YOU decide to love or submit to...or what earthly entity...is not equal to but transcends...YOU the individual.
The Libertarian party and movement reflects this soullessness. It’s is mindless in it’s distain for goodness and humanity, imho. The absense of good is evil. There will be no vacuume.
Libertarians have awarded the Left total social and cultural power for the last thirty years. I observe it to be mindlessly anti-moral, anti-ethical and anti-human in practice. I see the evolved state of affairs in fascist America, where corporations dominate government and American life and government as the ultimate vision of Rand. It is pure materialism. It despises Christians because it is the opposite of what Jesus represented in humanity.
Sure it can stand the having and raising of children, unless you don’t love them i guess,,,,
You are making a common mistake. She was only against people being forced into service against their will. She would be against forced abortions in China, and against Lebensborn projects in Germany. Never saw anything where she was against a person who wanted children with someone they loved.
That's only if you don't consider the strong likelihood that Rand's entire philosophy began with her atheism.
Seen in that light, the tenets of Objectivism make a great deal more sense.
I believe that Rand started off (and ended) as an ardent atheist who nevertheless had a strong sense of moral imperatives.
She was not willing to give up her atheism, but she needed to justify morality as a set of "absolute" principles. In essence, she needed a way to create a moral system that yields the last six Commandments without having to deal with the troublesome first four.
Unfortunately for her, the axiomatic underpinnings of her philosophy do not withstand scrutiny -- even when tested by Rand's own standards they collapse.
For example, consider her statement, "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." Which sounds great, until you bring children into the mix.
Quite simply, Rand's philosophy cannot survive contact with the philosophical implications of living in a family.
But in the end, that obvious failure still traces back to her atheist assumptions.
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
***
All comes down to this - Who is your Lord? —
Is a person seeking his own way and will or the Lord's will and way.
The world, the enemies of Christ, seculars, humanists, new agers, satanists etc - they all seek their own will, they all do their own thing, they all do what is best for their self - that is their religion - Do what thou wilt! aliester crowley the beast himself.
Most of Rand’s critics have no idea what she actually said. Choosing to help friends, family, or complete stangers is in fact what most normal people want to do, it gives them personal satisfaction, and it is thus a selfish act, not “altruism”. Helping others by giving them things that you have stolen from the rightful owner is what she opposed. You can’t tell the difference between altruism and selfishness unless you analyze the thoughts that accompany the act.
If you are doing as you wish you may pat your self on the back for your good works, but I contend you wouldn’t be doing them unless you wanted to. Same with me, and I have always helped a lot of people. As I recall, Rand’s reply to the question of “What shall we do about the poor?” was “Nobody will stop you from helping them.”
It sometimes seems that all ideas of actual personal freedom will be rejected out of hand by the emotional non-thinkers of the world. This is what allows demagogues to impose tyrannies and inflict misery and death on millions.
Further, dying alone and broke does not invalidate one’s ideas. If it did, half the philosphers in history would have to be ignored.
So basically Rand’s philosophy is no more than the Pagan creed that “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“I see the evolved state of affairs in fascist America, where corporations dominate government and American life and government as the ultimate vision of Rand. It is pure materialism.”
If you ever actually decide to read some of her works, you should understand how utterly incorrect that statement is. A quick easy place for you to begin, would be her address to the Graduating class at West Point in the 70s. It’s easily found on the internet.
You must have overlooked the part where I said that she had a lot of great ideas. My issues are not so much with Rand; in some ways she was a tortured genius who evokes my sympathy. My problem is with the people who embrace her and her notions with a virtually religious like zeal, and then feel compelled to denounce religion and attack any person who has anything negative to say about her.
I agree with you in essence. Speaking at a personal level, her atheism helped shape her philosophy and, for her, was essential to it.
Objectivism, as a whole, is a solid philosophy; surprisingly mature and balanced. It’s the base structure that is it’s weakest point, and why I reject it as a lifestyle philosophy. But I think it offers a lot as an intellectual obstacle course.
When faced with a major decision or a major concept, I try to run my choices through several gauntlets to see which can emerge intact. Rand’s philosophy is one of those gauntlets I run them through. I sometimes reject the results of that particular run, but it almost always shows me any major flaws in my way of thinking.
“Altruism” as practiced by liberals is very similar to “enslavement”... True altruism makes the recipients stronger - not weaker. The fruit tells us the nature of the tree...
No, that is not her philosophy. I would say a better summation would be the old canard ‘The freedom of your fist ends at the point of my nose’.
Coercion and force is absoluted anathama to her philosophy and it is that respect of others that is the control point of her philosophy.
“What shall we do about the poor?” was “Nobody will stop you from helping them.”
Of course the questioner really meant, “what should i be allowed to FORCE you to do about the poor?”. Because the truth actually is, just as she sagely observed. Most people do almost nothing personally for the poor, but with great enthusiasm, they will band together in groups, and then force you to.
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.