How Does One Resolve the Differences Between Catholicism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism?

[lothariorowe]

Clearly the misunderstanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is rampant in this thread. The discussion is fruitless if everyone is educated by wikipedia and youtube, and lacks philosophical thinking. Learn what an ad hominem argument is, and then count how many times that invalid argument structure was used in this thread. Read her works, read the words from her own pen. There’s a reason why The Fountainhead is over 700 pages, and Atlas Shrugged is over 1000 - but of course that’s also the excuse to cop out and read summaries and other people’s words about Ayn Rand’s words. As is the world however, people running around as nothing more than mirrors of one another - reflecting the same ideas, thoughts, likes and dislikes as their brother next to them - everyone fearing the repercussions of individuality. “yes we can!”

I’m interested in continuing or restarting the discussion with any person well educated on both sides of the issue, and having recent memory of Ayn Rand’s works.

 

[DCNBILL]

It appears to me tha the original question might just as easily be;

How Does One Resolve the Difference Between Catholicism and Hugh Hefners Hedonism?

Peace to all,

Bill

 

[piejesu]

That’s a miserable outlook on one’s own life. True fulfillment only comes from lending yourself to the happiness and fulfillment of others - says who? I completely disagree, on the grounds that were posted above. Giving oneself to another for the purpose of one’s own happiness is just as “selfish.” Giving one’s self to another just for the sake of their benefit is devaluing to your own person…it is the forfeiting of one’s own importance.

Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Mat. 18:4

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.Mat. 23:12

He who is greatest among you shall be your servant. Mat. 23:11

If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Mat. 16:24

For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. Mk. 8:35

whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Mat. 23.12

Who said all the above?

 

[Pax]

Clearly the misunderstanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is rampant in this thread. The discussion is fruitless if everyone is educated by wikipedia and youtube, and lacks philosophical thinking. Learn what an ad hominem argument is, and then count how many times that invalid argument structure was used in this thread. Read her works, read the words from her own pen. There’s a reason why The Fountainhead is over 700 pages, and Atlas Shrugged is over 1000 - but of course that’s also the excuse to cop out and read summaries and other people’s words about Ayn Rand’s words. As is the world however, people running around as nothing more than mirrors of one another - reflecting the same ideas, thoughts, likes and dislikes as their brother next to them - everyone fearing the repercussions of individuality. “yes we can!”

I’m interested in continuing or restarting the discussion with any person well educated on both sides of the issue, and having recent memory of Ayn Rand’s works.

You may have just made an ad hominem argument yourself within your first two sentences…so being careful about such things works both ways.

My reading of this thread brought one thing to the surface that may or may not be important. It seems to me that the Christian view of love for one’s fellow man is different from Rand’s attack on altruism. Christian love of fellow man does not mean that we love all people equally. Likewise, love of your fellow man does not mean that you have to like someone.

Rand, unfortunately, reduces the love we have for our fellow man to zero if there is no perceived virtue in our fellow man. Rand clearly believes that our love for our fellow man is to be earned by the virtue within our fellow man. This is, in fact, incompatible with the Catholic view of “love for our fellow man.” The fact that God created each human being in his image and likeness, and that the Father sent his only son, Jesus, to die for the sins of all men, demonstrates an intrinsic value in man that trumps Rand’s views.

This does not mean, however, that all are to be loved to the same degree or that we must also “like” everyone.

Please note that the sales volume of Rand’s books proves nothing about the truth of her philosophy. The appeal, and thus the sales, may be the result of other things entirely. The quality of her writing is certainly one area of appeal. Likewise, one might find an articulate proponent of “self interest” to be just thing to stoke the fires of personal ego and selfishness. Such motivations, if they exist, are not testimonials to the truth of her philosophy. I would abandon any claims concerning the “truth” and correctness of her philosophy based on how many of her books are sold annually.

 

[ChadS]

Clearly the misunderstanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is rampant in this thread. The discussion is fruitless if everyone is educated by wikipedia and youtube, and lacks philosophical thinking. Learn what an ad hominem argument is, and then count how many times that invalid argument structure was used in this thread. Read her works, read the words from her own pen. There’s a reason why The Fountainhead is over 700 pages, and Atlas Shrugged is over 1000 - but of course that’s also the excuse to cop out and read summaries and other people’s words about Ayn Rand’s words. As is the world however, people running around as nothing more than mirrors of one another - reflecting the same ideas, thoughts, likes and dislikes as their brother next to them - everyone fearing the repercussions of individuality. “yes we can!”

I’m interested in continuing or restarting the discussion with any person well educated on both sides of the issue, and having recent memory of Ayn Rand’s works.

Saying that wikipedia and youtube aren’t always accurate has become a truism in this technological society where information is at our fingertips, yet I haven’t seen the information provided on those sites discredited or called into serious question here. If we misunderstand Rand so badly then it is your duty to set us straight. Telling us to go read a 700 or a 1000 page book doesn’t cut it either. You can accurately portray a person’s writings and arguments as they argued it without it becoming what you deride as “nothing more than mirrors.” I really don’t see anybody here repressing their individuality either. All of the posts seem to me to have been fairly open about what they they believe about objectivism and Rand’s works so I don’t think we’re in danger of all falling into a lax “yes we can” attitude.

I suppose my philosophically lacking, uneducated mind isn’t welcome in this discussion anylonger. I’ll let the Rand discussions up to the true believers out there.

ChadS

 

[lothariorowe]

Who said all the above?

from the original post:

As a preface, know that any unsubstantiated argument made here will quickly be greeted with a necessary “why,” and “because Jesus said so” is not a sufficient answer. God does not and cannot defy logic (speaking philosophically), so if its because Jesus said so, then we must understand why He said so.

=========================================================

You may have just made an ad hominem argument yourself within your first two sentences…so being careful about such things works both ways.

Please learn what an ad hominem argument is - there are plenty of resources out there.

Please note that the sales volume of Rand’s books proves nothing about the truth of her philosophy…I would abandon any claims concerning the “truth” and correctness of her philosophy based on how many of her books are sold annually.

Of course, I’m a smart guy, I can think for myself. Nothing is ever true as a result of its reception in society…thats a collectivist framework, and if you ever decided to read Rand’s own words, you would realize how much of a contradiction that is to the very philosophy being proposed.

==========================================================

Saying that wikipedia and youtube aren’t always accurate has become a truism in this technological society where information is at our fingertips, yet I haven’t seen the information provided on those sites discredited or called into serious question here.

Take a look, I never claimed any inaccuracy with those sources. I said “read her works, read the words from her own pen.”

If we misunderstand Rand so badly then it is your duty to set us straight.

Its this type of thinking that is being condemned. It is absolutely not my duty whatsoever. I was simply hoping to find a knowledgeable Catholic who has also read and understood her works as I have to engage in intelligent conversation. I have no interest in educating or summarizing Rand’s prolific body of work.

All of the posts seem to me to have been fairly open about what they they believe about objectivism and Rand’s works

As the sole reader of her works in this thread, I can say that no poster has understood objectivism. Everything has been ad hominem arguments against Rand as a person, straight quotations from Catholic sources - of which I am well educated, and remedial arguments that are too shallow to have any relevance. What else could be expected if people are arguing against works that they’ve only read brief summaries of.

I suppose my philosophically lacking, uneducated mind isn’t welcome in this discussion anylonger. I’ll let the Rand discussions up to the true believers out there.

You’re welcome to post any and everything you’d like. It’s far from anybody’s right to take that from you - of course however, its within everybody’s right to choose to respond to any of those posts. Thanks for the participation.

 

[aspirant]

I’ve read a little Rand, but it disgusts me. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to reconcile it with Catholicism. They’re utterly opposed.

Reading recommendations that spring immediately to mind:
The Drama of Atheist Humanism by Henri de Lubac
Gaudium et Spes (the whole thing, but especially nos. 22-24)
Love & Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla

Why is this a great commandment of God? To love God, sure, because he is superior to us. But why to love thy neighbor?? Why demand the love of the neighbor before even knowing the neighbor?

For the sake of each neighbor, each person whose intrinsic value surpasses the whole cosmos.

“When you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately, to love people without any standard…you are asked to love nobody.”

Non sequitur.

I detest the notion that man was made to serve

You will never be able to reconcile this with Christianity. We are made in the image of the divine Servant. We cannot truly be free, be ourselves, be happy, or find fulfillment without serving.

The ultimate objection I have with altruism is the placing of another’s interests above your own.

This is at the heart of Christianity: “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

 

[lothariorowe]

I’ve read a little Rand, but it disgusts me.

Ok, which of her works have you read? What part disgusts you?

 

[aspirant]

Ok, which of her works have you read? What part disgusts you?

The one I read most recently, though many years ago now, was Anthem (the other stuff I read was before 2000). Everything about the book was disgusting, like the self-aggrandizing and sexist pig who narrates the story, his erroneous conception of freedom, etc.

 

[lothariorowe]

The one I read most recently, though many years ago now, was Anthem (the other stuff I read was before 2000). Everything about the book was disgusting, like the self-aggrandizing and sexist pig who narrates the story, his erroneous conception of freedom, etc.

I would ask for specifics, but I assume none can be given, thus the preface of the time frame?

For instance, what specifically did you interpret as self-aggrandizing? What in the book was sexist? How was his conception of freedom erroneous?

I need to understand the source, the causation for these objections.

Granted, Anthem is my most recently read of her works, and it is far more primitive and much shorter than her 2 masterpieces. It has been said she intended it not as a novel, but a poem, lacking some of the formulaic attributes that make a novel a novel. As some note: “it departs significantly from her other works in style and characterization.” Having said that, it still puts forth her basic philosophy in short and blunt form, without the elegance of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. It was a quick read - 1 night’s worth - and I enjoyed it alright.

If you are able to elaborate on the above questions, I’d be very interested in hearing it.

 

[aspirant]

I would ask for specifics, but I assume none can be given, thus the preface of the time frame?

Yes, the time frame means the statements can only be general.

What in the book was sexist?

As I remember it, pretty much everything about the main character’s treatment of the woman.

How was his conception of freedom erroneous?

It was deeply rooted in nominalism, as I recall.

it still puts forth her basic philosophy in short and blunt form

A philosophy irreconcilably at odds with Christianity.

Honestly, I would find the philosophy of that book repugnant even if I wasn’t a Christian. But as a Christian, I want nothing to do with it.

 

[lothariorowe]

As I remember it, pretty much everything about the main character’s treatment of the woman.

The main character saw equality and a deep and profound, yet unspoken connection with women. The society tried to regulate sex and mating - the main character saw through that.

It was deeply rooted in nominalism, as I recall.

I don’t believe nominalism has any part in the book, or at most, is against nominalism.

Honestly, I would find the philosophy of that book repugnant even if I wasn’t a Christian. But as a Christian, I want nothing to do with it.

And yet no reason for these feelings has been convincing or even accurate. Perhaps another read through of the book would help, but I tend to assume you probably wouldn’t allow yourself another read of it?
The above listed arguments seem to be at odds with her book, and unfortunately without specifics, no further light can be shed.

 

[Lujack]

Ayn Rand’s definition of freedom as the ability to do whatever one wishes is not compatible with the Catholic definition of freedom, which is the ability to choose to do as one ought, the ability to choose to do right.

 

[Pax]

You said the following:

The discussion is fruitless if everyone is educated by wikipedia and youtube, and lacks philosophical thinking.

My response was:

You may have just made an ad hominem argument yourself within your first two sentences…so being careful about such things works both ways.

You then said:

Please learn what an ad hominem argument is - there are plenty of resources out there.

Please be advised that I know what an ad hominem attack is and can recognize thinly veiled attacks when I see them. To suggest that the only thing people on this thread have used as sources is Wiki and Youtube is bad enough, but to then say that we lack philosophical thinking is indeed ad hominem.

I also said this:

Please note that the sales volume of Rand’s books proves nothing about the truth of her philosophy…I would abandon any claims concerning the “truth” and correctness of her philosophy based on how many of her books are sold annually.

And you then responded as follows:

Of course, I’m a smart guy, I can think for myself. Nothing is ever true as a result of its reception in society…thats a collectivist framework, and if you ever decided to read Rand’s own words, you would realize how much of a contradiction that is to the very philosophy being proposed.

Please be advised that I have read some of Rand’s original words but certainly not all of them. My point concerning sales volume of her work was a criticism of your thinking and use of that gambit. It has nothing to do with whether or not Rand’s philosophy agrees with my point concerning how things are received by society. Your statement in that regard is irrelevant, fails to refute my criticism, and appears to be nothing more than a red herring.

My son has read and is quite enamored with Rand’s books. We’ve had some lively discussions about them, and I notice in your responses some of the same things in his remarks. My take on this, is that you both accept Rand uncritically. My inclination is to always take exception to the assumptions and premises of those that write polemical works. Believe me…you learn a lot more that way.

This thread is about whether or not Rand’s philosophy of objectivism can be be reconciled with Catholic teaching. It is useless to complain about whether or not others have read or appreciate Rand as you do. The question remains…does her philosophy agree with and can it be reconciled to Catholic teaching or not? Thus far, it is my impression that it does not and that you have failed to prove otherwise.

God bless.

 

[aspirant]

The main character saw equality and a deep and profound, yet unspoken connection with women.

The way I remember it, he basically treated her like furniture.

I don’t believe nominalism has any part in the book, or at most, is against nominalism.

The main character’s whole conception of freedom was inextricably rooted in nominalism.

Perhaps another read through of the book would help, but I tend to assume you probably wouldn’t allow yourself another read of it?

I’d be willing if I didn’t have a big stack of better books waiting for me at the moment.

 

[aspirant]

This thread is about whether or not Rand’s philosophy of objectivism can be be reconciled with Catholic teaching… Thus far, it is my impression that it does not and that you have failed to prove otherwise.

lothario is welcome to attempt it.

 

[lothariorowe]

lothario is welcome to attempt it.

The post’s title is a question from me, not to me.

I don’t know if one can resolve the differences, that’s why I posited the question. I still go to church by myself every week, but find it harder and harder to sit through certain parts of the mass - the “I’m not worthy’s,” and the “consider your neighbor as more important than yourself’s.” Not that I don’t understand the reasoning behind them, but rather whether I can continue to morally agree with that reasoning.

I have passionate goals and interests that give vibrancy to my every day, and I wouldn’t sacrifice them for anyone. I view myself as a beautiful creation of God, and in being such, I am most interested in fulfilling the potential of all the gifts and abilities I’ve been so fortunate to be endowed with. God gave these talents to me specifically and uniquely, and to no one else, therefore I rationally view it as my foremost priority to fulfill these talents, my own talents, and never to place myself in significance below any other person. I am proud of the creation that is me. Likewise, I denounce any person who places my happiness above their own. Their obligation should be to their own happiness before mine or anyone else’s. Nobody can experience my personal happiness as I can, therefore my happiness should never be any other person’s priority.

“The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life-and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.”

 

[davidv]

The post’s title is a question from me, not to me.

I don’t know if one can resolve the differences, that’s why I posited the question.

ISTM the the many posters have responded to that question. IMHO their majority response was that the two cannot be reconciled, primarily because they are built on contrary premises.

I still go to church by myself every week, but find it harder and harder to sit through certain parts of the mass - the “I’m not worthy’s,” and the “consider your neighbor as more important than yourself’s.” Not that I don’t understand the reasoning behind them, but rather whether I can continue to morally agree with that reasoning.

I have passionate goals and interests that give vibrancy to my every day, and I wouldn’t sacrifice them for anyone. I view myself as a beautiful creation of God, and in being such, I am most interested in fulfilling the potential of all the gifts and abilities I’ve been so fortunate to be endowed with. God gave these talents to me specifically and uniquely, and to no one else, therefore I rationally view it as my foremost priority to fulfill these talents, my own talents, and never to place myself in significance below any other person. I am proud of the creation that is me. Likewise, I denounce any person who places my happiness above their own. Their obligation should be to their own happiness before mine or anyone else’s. Nobody can experience my personal happiness as I can, therefore my happiness should never be any other person’s priority.

“The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life-and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.”

This quote seem to personify the polar opposites between objectivism and Catholicism. The life of Christ, “the Way the Truth and the Life” is anything but the one of an “actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest.”

 

[aspirant]

I view myself as a beautiful creation of God, and in being such, I am most interested in fulfilling the potential of all the gifts and abilities I’ve been so fortunate to be endowed with.

That is good. Christ teaches that you can fulfill that potential only by making a sincere gift of yourself to others, and the divine Servant in whose image we have been made from the beginning himself lives the example.

 

[lothariorowe]

That is good. Christ teaches that you can fulfill that potential only by making a sincere gift of yourself to others, and the divine Servant in whose image we have been made from the beginning himself lives the example.

But you see, in pursuing your interests via the use of your unique abilities, your creation can be a gift to others. For example, Howard Roark had a gift for architectural design, and in using his abilities in pure form without compromise, his structures became beautiful gifts to society and to their owners. The other architects who said what they had to say, and changed what they were asked to change in order to adhere to society’s standards and ultimately be deemed worthy of the commission, ended up providing inferior and unengaging buildings. Every great product or achievement was the result of an artist, inventor, or innovator who pursued their own vision without compromise, and often in the face of initial public disapproval.