Posted on 11/13/2009 7:51:55 AM PST by cornelis
Objectively, Ayn Rand Was a Nut [Peter Wehner]
According to Politico.com, Ayn Rand — the subject of two new biographies, one of which is titled Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right — is “having a mainstream moment,” including among conservatives. (Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina wrote a piece in Newsweek on Rand, saying, “This is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She’s more relevant than ever.”).
I hope the moment passes. Ms. Rand may have been a popular novelist, but her philosophy is deeply problematic and morally indefensible.
Ayn Rand was, of course, the founder of Objectivism – whose ethic, she said in a 1964 interview, holds that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” She has argued that “friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.” And about Jesus she said:I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.Many conservatives aren’t aware that it was Whittaker Chambers who, in 1957, reviewed Atlas Shrugged in National Review and read her out of the conservative movement. The most striking feature of the book, Chambers said, was its “dictatorial tone . . . Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal . . . From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber — go!’”
William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote about her “desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral; but also there is the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable.”
Yet there are some strands within conservatism that still veer toward Rand and her views of government (“The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force,” she argued. “This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else.”), and many conservatives identify with her novelistic hero John Galt, who declared, “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.”
But this attitude has very little to do with authentic conservatism, at least the kind embodied by Edmund Burke, Adam Smith (chair of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow), and James Madison, to name just a few. What Rand was peddling is a brittle, arid, mean, and ultimately hollow philosophy. No society could thrive if its tenets were taken seriously and widely accepted. Ayn Rand may have been an interesting figure and a good (if extremely long-winded) novelist; but her views were pernicious, the antithesis of a humane and proper worldview. And conservatives should say so.
#39, son. And that’s the tip of the iceberg, where Rand’s irrationality is concerned.
It would have been much more “Christian” to say “I will never live for the sake of another against my free will.”
Exactly, Ayn was mostly right. She tripped up in a few spots, probably in opposition to the Progressive/Fascism of her time.
Ayn Rand's weakness was her belief that pure self interest was the antidote to socialism. In fact, self interest is the key to the socialist elite. All the propaganda is just for the masses.
Ayn Rand's other great weakness was her denial of the need for and the power of spirituality. The self interested people were always co-opted and out maneuvered by socialists and communists. Those who defeated Communism were people like Lech Walesa, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, all of whom understood that socialism could never stand up to people with moral integrity and strong spiritual beliefs.
William F Buckley and Whitaker Chambers also understood this.
“..but then, that’s what insane people do, too: they draw painstakingly logical conclusions from initial conditions that have no contact with the real world.”
Hey, you just described religion perfectly. Thanks!
Excellent point. I might even put it more strongly .... that pure self-interest is actually antithetical to moral integrity, which fundamentally lies outside the self.
I sympathize with your position, but you can't "heal" rot. You have to cut it out or burn it out.
Regards,
But is there anything to encourage serving others? Or is considered just a “preference”?
Humourless and unreadable.
I can't take you seriously.
I can't take you seriously.
Rationality is a wonderful thing, God’s gift to mankind.
But without God, there is ultimately no rationality.
Which is exactly the problem with Rand, of course.
The Christian view is that true slavery is slavery to one’s own merely human wants and desires.
Not much different from Buddhist belief, in that regard.
Ayn Rand was fundamentally wrong. She claimed that her books were all about the strength of the individual, but if you read them, in none of them did an individual succeed on his own. Her heroes succeeded as a part of a voluntary community.
And that’s where she was wrong, and where the libertarian attack on collectivism so often goes wrong. The problem with collectivism isn’t the group, it’s the coercion.
The communitarians aren’t evil in wanting to build a sense of community, they are evil in that they confuse the community with the state and advocate using the power of the state to force individuals into community.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a socialist collective, provided that the individual members are free to join, and are free to leave.
The strength of a society is in its voluntary associations.
There is nothing in there about tennis shoes, either.
I personally look to G-d for guidance on moral issues, not government.
Romans 3:22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Revelation 3:8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Pretty much sums it all up.
THROUGHOUT the Bible, salvation and condemnation are talked about.
Jesus himself in Matthew 7:13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
I agree!
Christ compels us to live for the sake of other men. Indeed, he promised to judge us on whether we do so or not. (Matt. 25:31) While there may be aspects of Randism that are appealing to man as selfish, sinful beings, in no way does it comport with what Christ would have us do.
Ms. Rand may consider the "notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice" as being appalling, but I think most Christians will differ.
Does she really think a vicious man would sacrifice himself for others? Only a man of supreme virtue and heroism would do this.
it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors.
Quite correct. True Christians would never force others to do so, of course.
Mother Theresa was pretty obviously superior (morally, mentally, etc.) to many if not most of those she devoted her life to, but she freely chose to do so. That her life was therefore wasted, which I assume Ms. Rand would believe, is at best a debatable proposition.
I would contend she led a high and admirable life. If she chose it freely, I don't see why Ms. Rand should object.
I think the more interesting questions are: (1) what constitutes salvation?, (2) are salvation and eternal life interchangeable concepts or is there a distinction? (3) does “eternal life” refer only to the afterlife or is there a fuller meaning?
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.