Posted on 10/12/2001 4:02:51 AM PDT by Mr. Polish-hammer
Just read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Here is my take:
I think we all agree on the basic tenet that capitalism is good, and anything else is bad. However, Ayn Rand seems to take this to a whole new level, one which I don't like. She places capitalism into her own moral egoist philosophy; capitalism is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, a moral one. Acting in ones self-interest is moral, altruism is immoral. So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral. What is immoral is when the government, or any other third party, forces one to be charitable. Any action done on voluntary terms, or any deal, is perfectly moral, and to call it immoral is non-sensical, if not scary.
To Ayn Rand, the lazy and incompetent, those without ambition, are immoral. Even if they seek no harm, mind their own business, and violate no ones rights, they are still immoral. Their only sin is to not be productive, which only harms society as a whole. It seems that Ayn Rand deems immoral that which does not benefit her, her being part of society.
Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion. Religion takes a beating in "Atlas Shrugged", being accused of fostering socialist mentality. Paradoxically, she praised the USA, especially its first one hundred years, as being the closest to her ideal. If religion fosters socialism, how does she explain the religous founding, and continuing religous existence of the USA? Moreover, why is it that the strongly socialist countries (USSR, Sweden, etc.) are strongly atheist, or have governments that despise religion?
Many inconsistencies are present in her writing. I'd be interested in hearing her defense. I know there are many fans on this forum.
Your assertion is a category error. God's essence and act of existence are one. Therefore, He is sui generis, and transcends all categories.
This makes Him different from all created things. All created things are composed, at their most basic level, of essence and act of existence, that is, what a thing is is separate from its existence.
What that means is that God is eternal (outside of time), without beginning or end, omnipotent, perfect, transcendent, all-good, etc. And all of these attributes are derivable through reason.
The problem with Rand is that she is not rational enough. She was not the first to assert that A=A. Aristotle was, 2500 years ago. And he was a much better philosopher. So was Aquinas.
Like a lot of people, I went through a Randian phase in my early twenties. Inasmuch as she introduced me to philosophy, and great philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas, I'm grateful. Inasmuch as I admired her philosophizing for a time, I'm pretty embarrassed.
They are hardly interchangeable, and your suggestion that they are is highly ironic.
Objectivism/Randism sounds more like Scientology than anything else. Neither of these was inspired by God, nor will either be around two thousand years from now. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
If you'd like to know more about Rand, then I suggest you read the books Barbara and Nathaniel Branden wrote. They both had a huge falling out with Rand, but I do think they are able to give a fair assessment of Rand's many faults and virtues. And if there's an immensely entertaining science-fiction novel by Matt Ruff named Sewer, Gas, and Electric, which deals quite heavily with Both Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, that is worth checking out as well.
Convenient, but remarkably unsatisfying.
If the spontaneous genesis of the universe is a practical impossibility, then so also is the spontaneous genesis of God.
Quite frankly, I remain unsatisfied by current explanations of the origins of the universe. But I am content to say that I simply don't know the answer to that question. I feel no compulsion to suggest "God" as the answer to that question, and dismiss all questions as to "God's" origins with a wave of the "transcendant magic wand".
ROFL! You pegged that right. These are regular weekly postings on FR. I think the idea is if they repeat it enough it will be true (or perhaps if we fail to correct it). Not only the founders of the country, but the Bible as well is a target for revisionists (see the "Jesus is a hemp-smoking deist libertarian" thread).
I'm not asserting that God arose spontaneously. I'm asserting that God never arose. God simply is. He is the great "I AM" of the Bible. He is eternal. God is existence itself. All other things participate in existence, because existence is not an inherent part of their essence.
But God's essence and act of existence are the same. His essence is to be.
An infinite chain of causes cannot exist, because although the idea of an infinite series can exist, an actual infinite series cannot. Because for the series to become actual, it becomes finite.
Agreed. IMHO her heroes represent idealized, abstract virtues, but her villains are based on observation. I can't remember the exact quote, but there's a lawyer who 'represented pickpockets, or the sort of people who stage accidents in front of rich corporations' (or words to that effect)
I'm not asserting that the universe arose spontaneously. I'm asserting that the universe never arose. The universe simply is. It is the great "I AM" of the Bible. It is eternal. The universe is existence itself. All other things participate in existence, because existence is not an inherent part of their essence.
As I said, I find both paragraphs equally unsatisfying.
It wasn't important to her plot, so she didn't much deal with it, but there was a woman in Galt's Gultch who was "only" a mother and housewife, and Rand was very positive about her.
Had I done what she did-escaping a country in the grip of statist monsters that I can't even begin to comprehend,I'd probably be on every soapbox in sight. As a short treatise on a personal philosophy,Galt's speech is a good one. One thing that I wish Rand had done-and she might have,come to think-is to have written more work that's shorter,focused on specific positions. I understand that she was employed as a screenwriter for a fair amount of time;if this is true,is there anywhere that her out-of-print stuff is archived? My comp skills are limited,at best.
This is reflected in the highest honor we give (usually posthumously) to winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor--men in battle who voluntarily place a higher value on other's lives than to themselves. Courage defined as love in action.
I personally don't see much to admire on Ayn (rhymes with "mine") Rand's ethic on altruism. When it come to Jesus' ethic or Ayn Rand's, there's no contest.
Go back and re read the book. Capitalism is the result of free people in the pursuit of happiness. Trading value for value, by mutual agreement to mutual profit.
So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral.
Atlas Shrugged may not be the best on this subject, Read The Fountainhead, Roark says that when you come upon suffering, you want to help and provide assistance, it is only natural. But to make the relief of suffering your prime goal, is to elevate suffering to a value.
Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion
True, my only problem with her. In The Fountainhead, she definitely makes the case for a spirit in each man, and what is right and proper that emenates from that spirit. IMHO the reason that she couldn't associate this spirit with God, was because she looked at every availlable religion, and all of their teachings. She found too many inconsistencies, which led her to believe that they were all wrong.
God has to be found within oneself, he cannot be found in other people. Some may light the way, but you must take the road yourself. I encourage you to read The Fountainhead, for her description of the "spirit of man", and then Read The Book of Matthew, specially Chapters 5 thru 8, (including the Sermon on the Mount). The case for Individualism was put forth first by Christ.
This statement flies in the face of virtually all evidence accepted by science for the origin of the universe...which states that it indeed did have an origin, in time. It's very hard to find any astrophysicist who believes in such a "steady state" universe anymore.
You seem to be missing the point. Rand does not condemn the choice to act in advancement of one's values. The point is that such an action (in order to be virtuous) must be a choice on the part of the actor.
If an individual should choose the advancement of his own values even over the value of his own life, his choice is a virtuous one. Her point, is that the choice must belong to the actor.
If the choice did in fact belong to the actor, then the act was NOT a sacrifice, but an act promulgated in advancement of that which was valued higher.
There is no such thing as a willing sacrifice. If the rational individual actor chooses to surrender value, he does so in deferenece to greater percieved value. If he jumps on a live hand grenade to prevent a terrorist attack, he does so because he values the lives of those he saved, even greater than he values his own.
Rand's philosophy does not condemn this action. It simply defines the action properly (as a choice on the part of the actor, to act in advancement of his own values, even at great cost).
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.