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.
Brilliantly said, sir. Couldn’t agree more!
Carl Jung suggested that communism was primarily a theocratical structure in which God was replaced by the State. I’m inclined to agree.
Coulter, however, does understand the medium of the camera and can connect with the viewer. It would be a fun half hour until Rand stalked out.
I wonder what she would’ve thought of Enron?
None? Not one, single, moral statement is true always and everywhere?
Of course, I may have missed some, but at this time, to me, no, not everywhere or always. This is not to say, that we do not strive for what we believe to be an absolute.
I’ll toss out one just for funsies: How about “Torturing, raping, and murdering 5-year old girls is always wrong”. There...a morally absolute statement. It would be wrong now and 10,000 years in the past or future. It would be wrong in China, New York, or on Mars. It would be wrong even if I claimed that “my morality” justifies it as right.
You are correct that we do strive for what we believe to be absolutes. But can no one be wrong about what they believe to be an absolute? If I believe the morally absolute statement that “There are no moral absolutes.”, is it possible to be right or wrong in my belief on this statment? And one last point: If we can be wrong about what we believe concerning moral absolutes, it implies that we can also be right.
As a specific, doing all that to a 5 yr old girl is always wrong to most of us, but not the torturing, raping and murder part...those have been an accepted part of wars for a long time. Although, I’m sure that some leader of some country or even some society somewhere in time, probably thought it was ok to do that to a 5yo girl, if it meant he won.
“There are no moral absolutes.”...I would think that is more just a statement, than an actual moral absolute. Certainly people can be considered wrong, it just depends mostly on the what, when and where during history it happened.
I'd choose Ayn Rand for a dinner companion, and Ann Coulter for a torrid affair (not sure what Nathaniel Branden would do, given such a choice).
ROFL!!!
“Carl Jung suggested that communism was primarily a theocratical structure in which God was replaced by the State. I’m inclined to agree.”
Me, too. Parkinson devotes a chapter to the Theocracy of Communism in this wonderfully readable book:
http://www.amazon.com/evolution-political-thought-Northcote-Parkinson/dp/B0006D6M1M
Besides mercy, Rand’s work also lacks the virtues of humility, patriotism, loyalty, purity, gratitude, joviality, and literary talent.
Patriotism? I suggest you read her address to the graduating class of West Point.
btt
All six billion individuals with six billion diffrent standards. Every man as a law unto himself?
Red Badger: That's why John Galt's speech is 90 pages long!.........
I am looking at this through orange juice droplets running down the screen. It almost went out my nose! LOL!
Individually yes, although many follow the same standards as others, they still have to obey societal laws, or suffer the consequences though. People usually do what they want anyway, regardless of laws, don’t they?
You’re not the same person that asked this earlier, are you? Sounds familiar.
"The best of all possible worlds?" (Leibnez)
I am guessing you never read Voltaire's Candide Dr. Pangloss...
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Test it with propositional logic or use categorical logic and Venn diagrams...
...they still have to obey societal laws, or suffer the consequences though.
The rule of the jungle... the strong prevail... or those with a greater army...
People usually do what they want anyway, regardless of laws, don’t they?
They keep sneaking across the border, so why bother?
You’re not the same person that asked this earlier, are you?
No. I didn't see the previous response from my new messages page...
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.