Ayn Rand may have said a few smart things, but she seems to have been a pretty empty person overall.
The Catholic church has way too much blood on it’s hands in the 20th century with Marxist governments to have any credit on anything.
And their support of socialism in America makes me sick!
Materialism, whether it’s collective or individual based, always leads to death. Marxism and Objectivism are two sides of the same coin in the end: all meaning is derived from the material world.
She never said any such thing about voluntary choices. Her objection was to governments (or quasi-governmental churches like the author's) compelling sacrifice from their victims.
Well, she said that no one has the right to compel another to sacrifice himself. That doesn’t mean that someone can’t decide to do it on his own. This author seems to think that people have to be forced to be altruistic. An insane concept.
I greatly admire Rand, however, I recognize she was exclusively intellectual at the cost of her spirit. I do believe, had she had children, her outlook and philosophy would have softened. She is the most moral “horizontal” person I have ever studied. That she eschewed the “vertical” was her choice. I can still map my own course using much of her moral landmarks.
Rather than confound myself with how they're able to do this, rationalizing personal altruism as a sin, and individual, singular arrogance as a virtue, it occurs to me that maybe there's a simple answer to it:
"Just plain ol' nuts."
I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
-- Ayn Rand
Yep. Culture of death for sure.
“Ayn Rand: Architect of The Culture of Death”
Now I thought that would have been Margaret Sanger.
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.
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.
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.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“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...
Hey Donald DeMarco. There has NEVER been a “CULTURE of Death” in an individual, yet there have been many, many, many cultures of death in gangs, tribes, collectives, countries throughout history.
Disgusting article.
That is correct. They do not have any rights. The individuals in those groups do. Making sacrifices for one's born or unborn children, one's elderly parents or other family members becomes anathema for Ayn Rand.
Nope. That statement is a straw man. "No man," she emphasizes, "can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave." Big difference.
Rand’s philosophy makes more sense than everything ever babbled by all the Popes combined.
ping
This article is simply a rant against Libertarianism. Yes, Rand was self-actualized, and thus obnoxious to those around her. It is unwise to concentrate on the author, and ignore the philosophy.
I wouldn’t hammer the Catholic Church over this, as the author doesn’t speak for the Church at large. There are even academics, with Catholic “cover”, that question even the Gospels. With as many conflicting doctrines being espoused by various Catholic “flavors” (liberation theology for one), it is hardly worth getting worked up dissecting the thoughts of one religious academic. It’s just one guy’s opinion.
Rand’s philosophy is more applicable now, than when she lived.