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

[James_S_Saint]

Look, nsper7 is entirely right with regard to one’s focus.

The entire purpose, the ultimate goal of man’s existence is to get himself to heaven - not to get someone else to heaven - but rather, through temporal self-sacrifice on earth, earn himself the right to an eternity in heaven. The eternal resting place for one’s own soul is the primary motivating factor for a Christian - a point not up for argument.

You, nsper7, and Ayn Rand keep throwing up false dichotomies and strawmen.

It is not a choice of selfless or selfish. It is not a choice of Communist or Capitalist.

The goal of self interest and selflessness meet, but require a higher intellect to understand because the benefit to self via selflessness is indirect. By giving up oneself, one obtains a greater logistical position for oneself. One gains greater love by not wanting for it but giving it freely, not in trade, but in consequence. The lesser mind cannot comprehend this and assumes the dichotomy of either self or other.

How a group is organized, Communist or Capitalist is a separate issue to the purpose of the organization. The state should not live for itself regardless of the order is assumes. The state is not a life until it promises to give life. But when it takes up itself in priority, it takes life away from those who gave for it and demands more every day. It is an artificial life consuming human life for fuel.

 

[aspirant]

“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages… we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands… we are in the position of children.” St. Basil the Great

It is the children who receive the inheritance: “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman… so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.”

You cannot get into heaven without doing something to help other people into heaven. Nor, prior to the last judgment, can you be in heaven without doing something to help other people into heaven. It’s impossible.

Loving others is both the means (to heaven) and the end (heaven itself).

Heaven is a place of perpetual self-sacrifice? Please point me to where you got this idea.

The New Testament. God is Love.

You cannot earn the right to heaven, no matter what you do. The right can only be received from God’s grace through faith informed by love.

Yes, after initial justification, they are. And these works and their reward are themselves a gift of God’s grace received through faith informed by love.

As St. Augustine says, “Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.”
And also:
“You [Lord] are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.”

We are Catholics, not Pelagians.

I’m not interested in semantics.

It’s not semantics. Your boss owes you a paycheck for your work. If you do not receive the paycheck, it is an injustice. God owes you nothing. Salvation is a free gift of his grace. If you do not receive it, no matter what you might think you’ve done to earn it, there is no injustice.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The curse and burden upon Jesus, Guatama, Aristotle, and many others was that their intelligence was too great for their environment. You only know their names because they were not so mismatched that they had no influence at all as is the case with so many others un-praised.

Those who cannot see the higher means by which selfless love benefits self are given to the idea of Heaven as a place to which to aspire. To the intelligent, Heaven is not a place to go to, but an accomplishment to attain for all via a manner of selfless love.

Muslim fear and Jewish selfishness are the alternatives for the lesser mind, each given to a higher order for sake of order yet both using more than serving. **Real **Christianity is the actual goal yet expressed as Heaven or Hell for sake of the lesser mind while not consuming that lesser mind in self interest of the order. **Real **Christianity is giving and accomplishing without taking.

Altruism requires higher intelligence to understand and thus is easy prey for criticism of the lower intellect. Altruism serves self by give up self, but the giving must not be with self in mind or heart. Such comprehension requires more sophisticated thought, a deeper realization and a divorce from the animal instincts of more direct self strategies.

 

[aspirant]

“Jesus has revealed to us that man is essentially a ‘son,’ a creature who lives in the relationship with God the Father, and in this way in relationship with all his brothers and sisters. Man is not fulfilled in an absolute autonomy, deceiving himself that he is God but, on the contrary, by recognizing himself as a child, an open creature, reaching out to God and to his brethren in whose faces he discovers the image of their common Father.” Pope Benedict XVI

“The one who wants to have his life for himself, living only for himself, keeping everything to himself and exploiting all its possibilities – is actually the one who loses his life. Life becomes boring and empty. Only by self-abandonment, only by the disinterested gift of the ‘I’ in favour of the ‘you,’ only in the ‘yes’ to the greater life, the life of God, does our life also become broad and great. Thus this fundamental principle established by the Lord is ultimately identical to the principle of love. Love, in fact, means letting go of oneself, giving oneself, not wanting to possess oneself, but becoming free from oneself: not retiring into oneself – (what will become of me?) – but looking ahead, towards the other – towards God and towards the men that he sends to me… But the great ‘yes’ …to the truth that the Lord puts before us – must then be won afresh every day in the situations of daily life when we have to abandon our ‘I’ over and over again, placing ourselves at the Lord’s disposal when deep down we would prefer to cling to our ‘I.’ An upright life always involves sacrifice, renunciation. To hold out the promise of a life without this constant re-giving of self, is to mislead. There is no such thing as a successful life without sacrifice.” Pope Benedict XVI

“In the course of the [Song of Songs] two different Hebrew words are used to indicate ‘love.’ First there is the word dodim, a plural form suggesting a love that is still insecure, indeterminate and searching. This comes to be replaced by the word ahabà, which the Greek version of the Old Testament translates with the similar-sounding agape, which, as we have seen, becomes the typical expression for the biblical notion of love. By contrast with an indeterminate, ‘searching’ love (dodim), this word (ahabà, agape) expresses the experience of a love which involves a real discovery of the other, moving beyond the selfish character that prevailed earlier. Love now becomes concern and care for the other. No longer is it self-seeking, a sinking in the intoxication of happiness; instead it seeks the good of the beloved: it becomes renunciation and it is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice… Love is indeed ‘ecstasy,’ not in the sense of a moment of intoxication, but rather as a journey, an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God: ‘Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it,’ as Jesus says throughout the Gospels. In these words, Jesus portrays his own path, which leads through the Cross to the Resurrection: the path of the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies, and in this way bears much fruit. Starting from the depths of his own sacrifice and of the love that reaches fulfilment therein, he also portrays in these words the essence of love and indeed of human life itself.” Pope Benedict XVI

“On Calvary, we see the perfect self-sacrificing love which is eternally the heart of the Trinity and therefore the heart of all things. Between the Father and the Son there is an eternal dynamic of perfect self-sacrificing love which overflows into the creation and into the human heart as the Holy Spirit who draws all into that eternal dynamic. On the Cross, the eternal self-sacrificing love enters time; and into that same love the whole Church is drawn from age to age as a priestly people.” Archbishop Mark Coleridge

 

[nsper7]

“Jesus has revealed to us that man is essentially a ‘son,’ a creature who lives in the relationship with God the Father, and in this way in relationship with all his brothers and sisters. Man is not fulfilled in an absolute autonomy, deceiving himself that he is God but, on the contrary, by recognizing himself as a child, an open creature, reaching out to God and to his brethren in whose faces he discovers the image of their common Father.” Pope Benedict XVI

“The one who wants to have his life for himself, living only for himself, keeping everything to himself and exploiting all its possibilities – is actually the one who loses his life. Life becomes boring and empty. Only by self-abandonment, only by the disinterested gift of the ‘I’ in favour of the ‘you,’ only in the ‘yes’ to the greater life, the life of God, does our life also become broad and great. Thus this fundamental principle established by the Lord is ultimately identical to the principle of love. Love, in fact, means letting go of oneself, giving oneself, not wanting to possess oneself, but becoming free from oneself: not retiring into oneself – (what will become of me?) – but looking ahead, towards the other – towards God and towards the men that he sends to me… But the great ‘yes’ …to the truth that the Lord puts before us – must then be won afresh every day in the situations of daily life when we have to abandon our ‘I’ over and over again, placing ourselves at the Lord’s disposal when deep down we would prefer to cling to our ‘I.’ An upright life always involves sacrifice, renunciation. To hold out the promise of a life without this constant re-giving of self, is to mislead. There is no such thing as a successful life without sacrifice.” Pope Benedict XVI

“In the course of the [Song of Songs] two different Hebrew words are used to indicate ‘love.’ First there is the word dodim, a plural form suggesting a love that is still insecure, indeterminate and searching. This comes to be replaced by the word ahabà, which the Greek version of the Old Testament translates with the similar-sounding agape, which, as we have seen, becomes the typical expression for the biblical notion of love. By contrast with an indeterminate, ‘searching’ love (dodim), this word (ahabà, agape) expresses the experience of a love which involves a real discovery of the other, moving beyond the selfish character that prevailed earlier. Love now becomes concern and care for the other. No longer is it self-seeking, a sinking in the intoxication of happiness; instead it seeks the good of the beloved: it becomes renunciation and it is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice… Love is indeed ‘ecstasy,’ not in the sense of a moment of intoxication, but rather as a journey, an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God: ‘Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it,’ as Jesus says throughout the Gospels. In these words, Jesus portrays his own path, which leads through the Cross to the Resurrection: the path of the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies, and in this way bears much fruit. Starting from the depths of his own sacrifice and of the love that reaches fulfilment therein, he also portrays in these words the essence of love and indeed of human life itself.” Pope Benedict XVI

“On Calvary, we see the perfect self-sacrificing love which is eternally the heart of the Trinity and therefore the heart of all things. Between the Father and the Son there is an eternal dynamic of perfect self-sacrificing love which overflows into the creation and into the human heart as the Holy Spirit who draws all into that eternal dynamic. On the Cross, the eternal self-sacrificing love enters time; and into that same love the whole Church is drawn from age to age as a priestly people.” Archbishop Mark Coleridge

What is the motivation for this self-sacrifice? Is it avoidance of Hell? Is it a sin to not enter this self-sacrificial state?

 

[aspirant]

What is the motivation for this self-sacrifice?

“If we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands… we are in the position of children.” St. Basil the Great

Is it avoidance of Hell?

“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.” 1John

Is it a sin to not enter this self-sacrificial state?

“Sin is… failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods… Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it… Sin is thus ‘love of oneself even to contempt of God.’ In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.” Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Benadam]

True altruism is impossible unless it flows from the experience of human life becoming fulfilled. :twocents:

 

[Oreoracle]

Having said that, I have recently read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and was greatly moved. I have now begun Atlas Shrugged (voted the 2nd most influential book for americans, only behind the Bible), as well as other Ayn Rand philosophy. Its no secret that she was a self-professing atheist, and with that I disagree, but I find myself in complete agreement with her denouncement of altruism.

It’s not as simple as “altruism vs. selfishness.” She had a valid point in her philosophy: everyone looks out for their own self-interest, and so “altruism” in the purest sense is impossible. The issue with her philosophy was that she went on to denounce using material means to aid others even if that is what one wishes to do (in the process implying that the desire for material satisfaction is more important than other kinds of satisfaction regardless of one’s tastes). Rather than sympathy/empathy being a tool for the public good, it was regarded as a character flaw by Rand.

Objectivism is not some idealistic worldview that will never be lauded by the majority. It’s happening before your eyes, as we speak. If everyone only looks out for themselves, then society as a whole worsens. Maximizing the public good aids individuals, but maximizing the individual’s good does not necessarily aid the public.

How can one disagree with the purity of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead?

Didn’t Roark rape the main female character, or was that in another of Rand’s books on “ideal men?”

Rand did become ill before she died, and her final days were made easier with the care of her friends. But hey, there was no material benefit in helping an ailing Rand, so shouldn’t they have just left her to die?

 

[o_mlly]

… Its no secret that she was a self-professing atheist, and with that I disagree, but I find myself in complete agreement with her denouncement of altruism. …

Rand built her philosopy, I think, on what she believed was a self-evident principle: man’s greatest happiness, man’s most basic urge lies in self-acheivement. If she offered a proof for that claim, I never read it.

If you destroy the truth in this fundamental premise, her house of card falls. Man’s most basic urge is reproduction; survival of the species for atheists, love of neighbor for theists. Rand lived her philosophy, choosing never to reproduce. If she were correct in her claim that the fundamental option is self-fulfillment then the altruistic urge of parents to beget children would be a rare phenomenon rather than the norm.

 

[antunesaa]

It is sufficiently clear that a Christian’s ultimate focus is his selfish desire for his own salvation - and you’ve been taught to ignore and deny that reality because of the guilt the word “selfish” has been taught to cause you.

Don’t take it personally, but you seem to have a very cynical view of the world. You seem to rationalize everything to a stratospheric extent. You state that very few people interest you. Is it because there’s so few interesting people around you, or because you’re such a bore that nice people turn away from you, and then you’re just a victim of selection bias?

Again, do not take this personally. I don’t know you and probably I’m just being stupid here and I apologize if you feel that is the case. But your testimony is so pungent that I couldn’t help thinking about that possibility. Maybe you can look inside and try to honestly consider that possibility?

 

[lothariorowe]

Didn’t Roark rape the main female character, or was that in another of Rand’s books on “ideal men?”

Yes that was Roark. Unfortunately there was no “rape,” but rather a deep and unspoken connection that existed between the two characters throughout the book. Its apparent when reading the book, and stated quite explicitly quite often.

Rand did become ill before she died, and her final days were made easier with the care of her friends. But hey, there was no material benefit in helping an ailing Rand, so shouldn’t they have just left her to die?

Material benefit means nothing to Rand. Also, she knew her friends had no moral obligation to her, and whatever they chose was their own choice.

 

[lothariorowe]

If she were correct in her claim that the fundamental option is self-fulfillment then the altruistic urge of parents to beget children would be a rare phenomenon rather than the norm.

Begetting children is far from altruism - or at least the altruism that Rand opposes.

 

[piejesu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by piejesu View Post

Who said all the above?

from the original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lothariorowe View 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.

Ahhh…so sorry, don’t have a lot of time for online stuff and posted in haste.

I guess my take on the dilemma would probably sound somewhat pessimistic and along the lines of defeatism to some, but has it been considered that there is no philosophical resolution, I mean in strictly philosophical terms? Isn’t it quite universally understood (among Catholics anyway) that philosophy while of great value cannot discern on the same level as the Wisdom that comes from above, namely revelation?

So to wrap it up for now - I have found myself at an apparent impasse. I have practiced and defended Catholicism for most my life from a purely intellectual standpoint, but I’m finding myself in complete disagreement lately with Altruism, also from a purely intellectual standpoint. How can this be reconciled while remaining Christian?

Is this a purely intellectual impasse? Is Catholicism purely an intellectual endeavor, pursuit, practice for you? Is the Thomistic approach to the relationship of faith and reason an avenue that might be considered?

My prayers are with you…

 

[o_mlly]

Begetting children is far from altruism - or at least the altruism that Rand opposes.

Really?

"What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?

Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one’s own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue."
objectivistcenter.org/cth–406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

The altruism is in the raising not the begetting.

 

[lothariorowe]

Really?

"What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?

Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one’s own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue."
objectivistcenter.org/cth–406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

The altruism is in the raising not the begetting.

No, raising one’s own children is not altruistic. So many people in this thread are way out in left field with regard to their understanding of what Rand teaches. This is why I encourage reading her classics, as she masterfully puts forth her ideals in 700+ pages of storytelling. I’ve read both her fiction and her non-fiction, and if all I read were her non-fiction or interview quotations as everyone here has done, I would have a completely inaccurate understanding of her teachings - when she tries to teach it directly and bluntly in non-fiction - it simply doesn’t carry the completeness of her novels.

She views loving one’s partner as an extremely selfish act, and the same can be said for raising one’s own children - when properly understanding her methodology.

 

[lothariorowe]

Isn’t it quite universally understood (among Catholics anyway) that philosophy while of great value cannot discern on the same level as the Wisdom that comes from above, namely revelation?

Unfortunately this may be true. When one resorts to belief that God’s wisdom and revelation can and does defy logic and reason - then the door is open to any teaching without any means of measurement.

As Rand states in The Voice of Reason:

Intellectually speaking, the period of the Middle Ages was the exact opposite of classical Greece. Its leading philosophic spokesman, Augustine, held that faith was the basis of man’s entire mental life. “I do not know in order to believe,” he said, “I believe in order to know.” In other words, reason is nothing but a handmaiden of revelation; it is a mere adjunct of faith, whose task is to clarify, as far as possible, the dogmas of religion. What if a dogma cannot be clarified? So much the better, answered an earlier Church father, Tertullian. The truly religious man, he said, delights in thwarting his reason; that shows his commitment to faith. Thus, Tertullian’s famous answer, when asked about the dogma of God’s self-sacrifice on the cross: “Credo quia absurdum” (“I believe it because it is absurd”).

 

[aspirant]

When one resorts to belief that God’s wisdom and revelation can and does defy logic and reason

This is nonsense. God and Reason cannot conflict because the Logos is God. There are truths the human mind cannot attain without revelation, but revelation never conflicts with reason.

As Rand states in The Voice of Reason:

Intellectually speaking, the period of the Middle Ages was the exact opposite of classical Greece.

And here’s sufficient evidence that Rand hasn’t the foggiest clue what she’s talking about.

 

[o_mlly]

No, raising one’s own children is not altruistic. So many people in this thread are way out in left field with regard to their understanding of what Rand teaches. …She views loving one’s partner as an extremely selfish act, and the same can be said for raising one’s own children - when properly understanding her methodology.

Is the “Ayn Rand Institute” in left field as well? You might re-check your position with the institute that "distribut[es] free copies of Ayn Rand’s novels and teaching guides to high school classrooms … " They seem to agree with those playing left field in this thread.

“To proclaim categorically … that ‘every marriage must be open to the gift of children’ is to demand that a couple sacrifice their own dreams and long-range goals to an alleged duty to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ Even a couple who wants to have children must, on this premise, do so out of submission to divine will–not because they value children as a source of personal joy. The rejection of birth control is the demand that couples surrender the power–crucial to their own happiness in life–of choosing when, or whether, to have children, and instead allow themselves to be reduced, by means of their healthy sexual desires, to the role of stock farm animals, breeding uncontrollably.”
aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13367&news_iv_ctrl=2408

 

[Myrmideo]

To answer the original question. Catholicism and Objectivism are not compatible. For one Objectivism is a philosophy built on athiesm. The whole philosophy is grounded in there is no higher reality then the one you are living. However as a Catholic you know different. So if you believe in the Catholic conception of God. Then you know a few things that are beyond our realm of senses. The only things that we know about God are what he reveals to us. For instance we know that God is love. God doesn’t just feel love. God actually is love. But not just any type of love. But genuine unconditional love. Now we know also that God is all knowing. So he must have an intimate knowledge about himself. So he knows that any creature that experiences him will experience unconditional love and as a result utter happiness. God wants us to love him and serve him, because he knows that in doing so we will experience unconditional love and happiness, by his very nature and being. By serving others and caring for others unconditionally we are experiencing God. But he also doesn’t want to force us to do this because love isn’t forceful. So he imbues us with free will. Hell is not a construct built by God to punish evil doers it is the natural result of freely choosing to not accept the love that God offers you. God wants you to be happy and he shows you how to do it in a way that will gain you ultimate happiness. The paradox is to be happy ourselves we have to make others happy, to love ourselves we have to love others, and to ultimately care about ourselves we have to be selfless to others.

 

[lothariorowe]

Is the “Ayn Rand Institute” in left field as well? You might re-check your position with the institute that "distribut[es] free copies of Ayn Rand’s novels and teaching guides to high school classrooms … " They seem to agree with those playing left field in this thread.

“To proclaim categorically … that ‘every marriage must be open to the gift of children’ is to demand that a couple sacrifice their own dreams and long-range goals to an alleged duty to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ Even a couple who wants to have children must, on this premise, do so out of submission to divine will–not because they value children as a source of personal joy. The rejection of birth control is the demand that couples surrender the power–crucial to their own happiness in life–of choosing when, or whether, to have children, and instead allow themselves to be reduced, by means of their healthy sexual desires, to the role of stock farm animals, breeding uncontrollably.”
aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13367&news_iv_ctrl=2408

You are taking words out of context from the rest of her body of work, the same way that protestants take verses from the Bible without respect to the context of the rest of the Bible - which results in errors. I am done correcting your misinterpretations. You are always welcome to clarify your understanding via Ayn Rand’s work.