Posted on 09/05/2005 5:33:55 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
A family.
I've thought about that question quite a bit, being a Christian and a fan of Rand. I have to draw the line with Rand, though, when she gets on her anti-religious kick. True Christianity espouses concern for others over oneself, and egalitarian community- but these things can only come from an individual's free choice to take part- cerainly not to be demanded by the state or any other entity, except perhaps an internal appeal from God Himself.
Rand rejects all this, because all she sees is the external. Much like communists try to justify their control freak beliefs with the Bible, when all they're looking at is the end result of a thriving community, and they substitute the spiritual process for a political one.
So in my mind, I make an end run around Rand's atheism with the assertion that true happiness is found in a freewill sacrifice for others, in the Name of Jesus.
I can go for that.
Right here is when he lost me.
You've got me thinking on that one. Good post.
Yah, I think you nailed it. She is perfect. She'd need a little "Linda Hamilton-izing" to get properly buffed, but it would work.
Shame on you for even trying that tired old line. I normally have a great deal of respect for you Willie, but you've really got your head lodged in your posterior with that statement.
Warlords imposing their will on the helpless population is in what way "peaceful"? How is using force to coerce people part of objectivism in any way? Same goes for Pablo. How many people has he ordered killed? How much rape, torture, theft, and dirty dealings has he presided over? This is objectivist how again?
Stop it... before you embarass yourself further.
I see atheism being the blindest superstition of all.
What is a more unreasoned superstition than to dogmatically affirm that there is no God? Such was the position of Ayn Rand. To positively affirm that one knows that there is no God is imply omniscience. Because omniscience is a quality that only God has, then we come to the conclusion that only God can say there is no God. I don't agree with agnosticism because I believe there are abundant proofs of God, but at least agnosticism is not a ridiculously irrational position as the positive blind faith atheism that Rand's system seems to have been built on. The first verse of the 14th Psalm says it well:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God
And the God of the New Testament is not a God that demands blind superstition. Hebrews 11:1 links faith to evidence and I Thessalonians 5:21 commands Chrisitans to "prove all things". All things includes the Bible as well as Ayn Rand's philosphy.
I just read that book last week...when I read that part, it sent chills down my spine...
I admit I'm not the most knowledgeable about Objectivists. If I'm not being fair to them, I'd welcome correction of any unfair statements. But I'm pretty sure the true believer's faith includes Rand's atheism which by itself makes the whole system suspect. And from what I gather, the true keepers of the orthodox Ayn Rand faith aren't very tolerant of heresy.
That one part of this article is a bunch of horse s---. But the piece as a whole is interesting.
But Baldwin, undecided on whether to film Atlas Shrugged as two separate motion pictures or as a television miniseries, seems sincere. Since we are living in the society Ayn Rand saw coming—persecuted businessmen, blackouts, looting—what she considered the purpose of her art, the projection of man as a heroic being, is needed now more than ever.
I sure hope he takes it seriously. "Atlas Shrugged" is one of the most important works in American literature. Speaking as someone who hates fiction; next to "Moby Dick", it's the best book I've ever read. I don't know much about Mr. Baldwin's work (other than the afore mentioned "Ray") so hopefully it won't be ruined. I assume if one is so driven to get this novel turned into cinema that one wouldn't do so out of anything but love, but Hollywood has purposely screwed up stories before.
I thought "Ray" was a very good biopic and got a feeling that maybe Mr. Charles tilted to the right in his politics. He definitely was upwardly mobile, not letting his handicap hinder his success. Plus he wanted to take control of his career to the point of obsession (not a bad thing, at all).
Well said. I read William F. Buckley's biography, from last year, and he talks at length about Ayn Rand and his relationship with her. That she was an "all or nothing" personality. He said something to the affect..'even though I wasn't accepted into her "club" because I didn't subscribe to all of her doctrine, I still consider her philosphy critical to the development of conservative thought'. I'm heavily paraphrasing... but you get the gist.
Yes, but those who have appointed themselves "the true keepers" of the faith suffer from the very "mind-body dichotomy" that Rand warned against. So now I'm afraid we're in the predicament of seeing Objectivism misrepresented by (some of) those who claim to be its representatives, people as uptight and humorless as Oliver Cromwell or any other dogmatist you can think of. I submit, however, that, nomatter how many legal papers they may have showing their "legitimacy", no matter how vociferously they may claim to be the "only" true advocates of Rand's philosophy, that their lack of kindness (and their lack of any awareness of their lack of kindness) makes them NOT, I repeat, NOT, the "true" representatives of Rand's philosophy. Again, I have met many, many Rand fans who are wonderful people. None of THEM have ever claimed to be "The Official" Objectivists.
Randian atheists have no moral reference frame to temper their lusts and ambitions.
Sure they do. Non-initiation of Force, Fraud, or Theft. Other than that, what do their "lusts" have to do with you? If you don't like what they are doing, stop trying look into peoples bedroom windows.
Their narcissistic "objectivism" always decays to moral relativism which undermines their altruistic claims.
Rand is a false prophet.
I dunno - think he's good-looking enough to play me?
There is nothing "relative" about the non-initation principle. No matter how you want to try and twist anything else. As far as the addition of any other moral code, what is stopping you? If you want to be Objectivist and Christian, about the only thing you won't be able to do is burn witches or stone people. I'm assuming those aren't high on your priority list.
And 9 out of 10 totalitarians agree with you. #10 is a Moslem who wants you dead.
I think he's that guy running around my neighborhood weaing a Howard Cosell mask. ;)
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.