Posted on 10/19/2007 6:35:11 AM PDT by rhema
This month marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. As I write, the book ranks Number 237 at amazon.com. That is phenomenal for a 1,200-page novel that contains philosophical speeches, one of which stretches to 90 uninterrupted pages. The book has sold over 6 million copies. In one survey from 16 years ago, Atlas Shrugged was ranked second only to the Bible as the book that influenced people most.
My Ayn Rand craze happened in the late '70s when I was a professor of Biblical Studies at Bethel College. I read most of what she wrote and was both attracted and repulsed. I was blown away with powerful statements of what I believed, and angered that she shut herself up in what Jonathan Edwards called the infinite provincialism of atheism. Her brand of hedonism was so close to my Christian Hedonism and yet so far—like a satellite that comes close to the gravitational pull of truth and then flings off into the darkness of outer space.
She was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1905, graduated with a degree in history from the University of Leningrad in 1924, and emigrated to the United States in 1926. "I am an American by choice and conviction," she wrote. "I was born in Europe, but I came to America because this was the country based on my moral premises and the only country where I could be fully free to write." She died on March 6, 1982.
She abominated altruism. All self-sacrifice is evil because: "Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of non-value. Thus altruism gauges a man's virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less 'selfish' than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one."
Ayn Rand had no place for mercy, whereas Christianity has mercy at its heart. And the reason for the difference is that God was simply missing in Ayn Rand's universe. Since there was no God from whom she had received everything undeserved, and since there was no God who promised to reward every act that showed His supreme worth, she could only conceive of sacrifice as the immoral suicide of one's own values.
What Ayn Rand meant by altruism is seen in the words of Lillian Rearden to her husband in Atlas Shrugged: "If you tell a beautiful woman that she is beautiful, what have you given her? It's no more than a fact and it costs you nothing. But if you tell an ugly woman that she is beautiful you offer her the great homage of corrupting the concept of beauty. To love a woman for her virtues is meaningless. She's earned it, it's a payment, not a gift. But to love her for her vices is to defile all virtue for her sake—and that is a real tribute of love, because you sacrifice your conscience, your reason, your integrity and your invaluable self-esteem."
Since Ayn Rand had no place for a sovereign, all-sufficient God who cannot be traded with, she did not reckon with any righteous form of mercy. It is indeed evil to love a person "for their vices." But mercy in the Christian sense is not "because of" vices, but "in spite of" vices. It is not intended to reward evil, but to reveal the bounty of God who cannot be traded with, but only freely admired and enjoyed. It aims not to corrupt or compromise integrity, but to transform the values of the enemy into the values of Christ. While it may mean the sacrifice of some temporal pleasures, it is never the sacrifice of greater values to lesser ones. It is the sacrifice of lower values to higher ones.
Therefore, Ayn Rand's philosophy did not need to be entirely scrapped. Rather, it needed to take all of reality into account, including the infinite God. No detail of her philosophy would have been left untouched.
Ayn Rand simply recognized Big Religion as another form of totalitarianism - socialists in fancy robes. Understanding that, nothing else in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ precludes one from believing in God and still finding the book’s themes inspirational.
Ayn Rand had no place for mercy
Unless the writer confounds mercy with altruism this is an incorrect statement.
Understanding that, nothing else in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ precludes one from believing in God and still finding the book’s themes inspirational.
I do recall in one of her newsletters that she regarded the 10 commandments as a sound basis for conducting one’s life.
Her egotism comes directly from John Locke and Thomas Hobbes...
What Rand failed to recognize:
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Plato’s Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin.
There can be no morality without one singular source defining what it is.
A Literate Ann Coulter.
Her egotism comes directly from John Locke and Thomas Hobbes...
What Rand failed to recognize:
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Plato’s Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin.
There can be no morality without one singular source defining what it is.
see #9...
That's why John Galt's speech is 90 pages long!.........
“Ayn Rand simply recognized Big Religion as another form of totalitarianism - socialists in fancy robes.”
I think it’s the other way round - totalitarianism is simply another form of Big Religion - priests with weapons.
The best thing about Ayn Rand’s writing is not in the value of what she says, but in the people it pisses off. (Ann Coulter is a sort-of modern Ayn Rand for a dumbed-down, ADD generation).
Perhaps that single source, is the individual.
Ping to read later
Ayn Rand would agree with very little of what Coulter has to say. Watching those two in a debate would be wonderful thing to behold-—and Coulter would have her head handed to her.
But there are over 6 billion individuals - each with thier own opinions- on this planet. I’m not sure how that could pass a “single source”.
From the latest "Cliff Notes" edition, the complete speech by John Galt...
"Screw you guys, I'm goin' home!"
Mark
"Mercy" means an unearned forgiveness.[Leonard Peikoff. "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series (1976), question period. Lecture 8.]
God's mercy means God's goodness toward those in misery and distress. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology
To me it is, because I do not believe that moral absolutes actually exist.
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.