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

[lothariorowe]

I consider myself well versed in Catholicism, and I spent many years engaged in intense apologetics with non-Catholics. I am a cradle Catholic, and have studied the majority of Catholic doctrine in depth. I can honestly say that Catholicism is the only philosophically tenable Christian faith. All the sects of protestantism and others are subject to significant philosophical and logical flaws.

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. People take offense at her endorsement of selfish motivation above all else, but she explicitly states, and anyone who reads her material would see, that she uses these words in an entirely different context than the definition society generally applies. How can one disagree with the purity of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead?

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?

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.

 

[CaptainPicard]

I consider myself well versed in Catholicism, and I spent many years engaged in intense apologetics with non-Catholics. I am a cradle Catholic, and have studied the majority of Catholic doctrine in depth. I can honestly say that Catholicism is the only philosophically tenable Christian faith. All the sects of protestantism and others are subject to significant philosophical and logical flaws.

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. People take offense at her endorsement of selfish motivation above all else, but she explicitly states, and anyone who reads her material would see, that she uses these words in an entirely different context than the definition society generally applies. How can one disagree with the purity of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead?

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?

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.

Objectivism seems downright evil to me, although I certainly don’t have much experience with it. Here’s a snapshot for others:
youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s

I think that there’s a lot that could be said about altruism and objectivism both – how each one would look when acted out by a whole society. I think that there’s a lot of wisdom in altruism, but I’ll limit myself to this:

If you’re mainly just looking out for what’s best for you, then it would make sense to do what the all powerful deity and creator of the universe asks you to. Do you believe in God or not? Do you believe that He revealed His will to us or not? Do you believe that He left us a church or not? The question that you asked is nothing near a foundational question. This is a cold way of thinking about the issue, but it’s obviously important.

Second, if you don’t believe that God exists, why would you believe in objectivism? If all life, humanity included, is just some sort of cosmic accident, why give value to any human or human interest at all – yours included? Why not go straight to nihilism?

 

[VociMike]

You shouldn’t assume others know exactly what your objection is just because you reference Ayn Rand. Rather, state it as simply as possible.

 

[ryanoneil]

I read Atlas shrugged recently and have thought about the same things. There is a short section in the book where Jon Gault talks about religion but I don’t recall where. Either just before, during, or after the radio broadcast. I should try finding it and then reread it. I don’t think the reward of eternal life comes up which is a pretty big motivating factor for Christians. Altruism makes sense from that perspective because it is objective. I don’t believe in altruism at the point of a gun.

 

[CaptainPicard]

Again, I think it’s a complicated subject. Here are a few more thoughts in no particular order that came to mind:

What does the Bible and the Church teach about charity? It isn’t just blind charity. There are hints in both the new and old testament that we’re to work for what we get and be somewhat discriminating in our giving. Paul says in Thessalonians “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” Of course, this sort of statement moderates the more numerous statements of how we’re to care for the poor. “What you do to the least of these, you do unto me.” And it makes sense because, as the Church teaches, we all have inherent dignity because we’re made in the image and likeness of God.

Anecdotally, those people in my life who are more selfless are the ones who seem the most happy. In reading the lives of the saints who gave up everything, they seem very joyful. I’m not sure if there is a natural explanation for this or not.

I think that it is probably more noble from a Catholic perspective to give of yourself and resources because you care about the receiver, rather than because you want to receive a reward, either natural or from God, for doing so. However, I certainly don’t think that’s it’s wrong to want a reward (I’m pretty sure the Church would agree) – be it feeling good, a general sense of happiness, or going to heaven when you die. I think that a big reason for forgoing many of the goods that an atheist objectivist would deem desirable is because if you cling to a lesser created good, you wont be able to receive greater blessings from God. Again, this depends on a more foundational question, “do you believe in God?”

 

[lothariorowe]

Objectivism seems downright evil to me, although I certainly don’t have much experience with it. Here’s a snapshot for others:
youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s

How can placing focus on personal happiness possibly be misconstrued as “downright evil?”

Of course Rand is referring to a deeply fulfilling happiness, as opposed to the shallow whims I’m sure many think of when referring to “whatever makes me happy.”

Have you read the Fountainhead? Your quote is very ‘Toohey.’ Personal happiness is presented in the form of Roark creating beautiful architecture that he believes in, and never compromising for the whims of any client, social standard, or competitor. While others scamper about to build and do whatever makes them look the best, make the most money, be the most famous, garner the most social praise, Roark only designs and builds because it alone makes him profoundly happy, and such, through an uncompromising and clear understanding of his personal happiness, he remains as the only truly happy and fulfilled individual among the other people running around that have made mirrors of themselves. Roark positioned himself in such a way, that no person had the power to take away his happiness. The happiness of the others, those who served the people, could be taken away over night. “I don’t build so that I have clients. I have clients so that I can build.”

If you’re mainly just looking out for what’s best for you, then it would make sense to do what the all powerful deity and creator of the universe asks you to.

Its not about what’s “best for you.” Its about what fulfills and makes you happy.

Serving others is fine, but when self-sacrifice is required to gain any personal merit, it develops some major problems. The idea of trying to become the least of men for the purpose of becoming the greatest is glaringly contradictory. I take issue with that.

Second, if a person does truly and genuinely serve others in a self sacrificial way, without any hidden desire or goal beyond the pure act of simple self sacrificial service, then it naturally devalues you below the person being served. Or in other words, what makes them more valuable than you, to the point that it is better for you to sacrifice yourself in servitude to them, rather then to yourself? Why are they more deserving of your time than your own self?

Also, what merits such a universal necessity to sacrifice and to serve everyone else - anyone else besides oneself? Unconditional love for everybody, regardless of the person, naturally devalues everybody. We should be able to give love to people precisely because of who and what they are deserves it - not just because they exist.

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

Do you believe in God or not? …if you don’t believe that God exists, why would you believe in objectivism?

It’s not an issue of whether God exists or not. Rather, its with regard to his teachings. It doesn’t make sense that he would be the creator of you, love you more than any known love, view you as a special creation unlike any other, and not want your happiness as your utmost priority, but rather put the happiness of others as a priority over your own happiness.

I could never demand that it is the duty of others to make my own self happy, and I could never believe that it is my moral duty to sacrifice myself for the happiness of others. I view myself as a self sufficient person, capable of fulfilling my own happiness internally - without need or want of any assistance from any other person. I don’t need to go to clubs or bars, or to be praised or hugged, or to be #1 or to have money in order to be happy. I give no 3rd party supreme power over my personal emotions. I am the means to my own happiness. If happiness is given to you by prestige, or power, or fame, or popularity, then it is ultimately given to you by people, and it can likewise be taken from you by people without you ultimately having any control over your own happiness. I refuse to be out of control of my own happiness. How can this be evil? How can God not want us to understand this?

 

[1ke]

Objectivism has one’s self as the end as the object, as the one served.

But this is false. We are not the end. We are not the one served. We do not exist for our own sake. God is our end, God is our object, and God is the one served.

From the Baltimore Catechism: Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? To know him, love him, and** serve him **in this world and to be happy with him in the next.

Union with God is our end. Happiness *with *him in the Beatific Vision is our destiny. Happiness here on earth is not our end. Serving God is our end. Doing God’s will comes from the great commandment to love God and neighbor. This centers around the theological and cardinal virtues.

Rand’s philosophy is built upon the conviction that there is nothing beyond ourselves. That there is nothing greater than we. That man is his own end, an end unto itself. Ayn Rand’s philosophy cannot be reconciled with Catholicism. It is incompatible with it because it is a false notion of who man is and what he is made for.

 

[lothariorowe]

Objectivism has one’s self as the end as the object, as the one served.

partly true - one’s own happiness is considered the ends. however, not “as the one served.” on the contrary, servitude is not required.

I don’t believe that man is the end, but I do believe God wants us to feel special, empowered, unique, and self sufficient (among other humans). I also believe that altruism destroys the uniqueness and power of the individual (a la communism). Any society’s attempt at creating complete equality has ended up destroying the beauty of the individual.

Happiness here on earth is not our end.

How can an all loving God demand altruistic servitude, which destroys the beauty of self?

Doing God’s will comes from the great commandment to love God and neighbor.

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?

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

a false notion of who man is and what he is made for

I detest the notion that man was made to serve, that man is but a sacrificial animal. This cannot be the demand, desire, and expectation of a loving creator. We have more value than that, each and every individual as a unique creation, not just existing as a part of the mass, but individuals with individual value, just as the beauty of their individual desires, dreams, and goals.

 

[Mark77]

Perhaps you are thinking too much!

Listen to your heart, not your mind.

“ ‘Blessed are the pure in Heart, for they shall see God’ (Mt 5:8). The organ for seeing God is the heart. The intellect alone is not enough.” Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI, p. 92.

The problem with trying to attain ‘happiness’ for yourself is that it is temporary, incomplete, fleeting & impossible. **True fulfillment only comes from Agape Love. The total self-giving love that sacrifices everything for another.
**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[ChadS]

partly true - one’s own happiness is considered the ends. however, not “as the one served.” on the contrary, servitude is not required.

I don’t believe that man is the end, but I do believe God wants us to feel special, empowered, unique, and self sufficient (among other humans). I also believe that altruism destroys the uniqueness and power of the individual (a la communism). Any society’s attempt at creating complete equality has ended up destroying the beauty of the individual.

How can an all loving God demand altruistic servitude, which destroys the beauty of self?

Why does altruism have to be a form of servitude? Many people have seen altruism as a way of giving of themselves, as serving others without being in service to others. There is a fine distinction between the two. One requires a free decision to help and the other you are forced to help whether you like it or not.

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?

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

Is this quote from Rand? To love a neighbor who you don’t know takes a great commitment and acknowledges their humanity without having judged their character. The Bible says that it is easier to love somebody who has done nice things for you. What good does it do you to love the person that gives you gifts? Are you loving the person because they give you nice things?

I detest the notion that man was made to serve, that man is but a sacrificial animal. This cannot be the demand, desire, and expectation of a loving creator. We have more value than that, each and every individual as a unique creation, not just existing as a part of the mass, but individuals with individual value, just as the beauty of their individual desires, dreams, and goals.

God loves us precisely for the fact he created us as unique individuals. As humans our highest goal in life should be to love and serve God with all of our hearts, but this isn’t a mindless love or service, it is one of free will done without reservation or hesitation.

ChadS

 

[antunesaa]

I view myself as a self sufficient person, capable of fulfilling my own happiness internally - without need or want of any assistance from any other person.

Still, even if this were the case happiness could be taken from you by events unconnected to people. You can develop a slow and progressive form of dementia; you can break a leg; you can have depression; you can loose your talent as an artist. I guess part of the Christian message is exactly that you cannot take full control of your own happiness or destiny; your only hope is to open yourself to reality (people, animals, objects) and humbly expect God to fill your heart with joy.

 

[Aaron_I]

I think it is fairly obvious that a world grounded in Objectivism would suck. Even for people like Rand’s hero, Roark. The man does what he loves precisely because he loves it. There is nothing wrong with that. But tell me, would it be so insanely horrible if Roark were to teach his trade to another out of generosity. I don’t even mean that it has to be a free lesson/apprenticeship. He can get his fair value for it. But it would be a sacrifice to take time away from doing what he loves (building) to teach the skill to someone else. Indeed, it may very well make him devalued below the other person as you so fear, although I think a rational person would disagree with that. If taking that time to teach someone else is a violation of Objectivism (I think probably it is), then that has serious consequences for Roark who presumably had to learn architecture from someone previously. Roark must have been lucky to find a teacher whose self esteem was so low that he was able to give of his own time to teach Roark. One has to wonder if Roark would have pitied the poor fool who was teaching him, although I’d imagine he may have felt disgust at him for being such a fool.

Also, I do feel (whether or not Ayn Rand would agree) that it is very important what things make you feel fulfilled. There are people in the world who really do take pleasure in the misfortune of others. I’m not suggesting that that’s a consequence of the Objectivism worldview, I’m just saying that there are a lot of losers out there. Does Objectivism place any stock in the merit of that which causes one pleasure? For instance, Roark takes pleasure in designing beautiful buildings. Nothing wrong with that. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he took pleasure in building terrible-looking buildings. Perhaps he had no training and his innate judgment of beauty were sorely lacking. Does his happiness lie entirely in what he is doing (i.e. building buildings the way he wants), or does the quality of the buildings matter? I haven’t read Rand except for a few excerpts, so I’m not sure, but that is a supremely important question that needs to be answered. If not, then a baby that throws its food is just as happy as is Roark. For that matter, so is the thug who happens to like to slash car tires in parking lots just to screw with people. I’m assuming Rand had the foresight to see that what people do matters, so I’ll progress the argument from there. If she didn’t, then her arguments can be dismissed far too easily.

If the quality of what one loves to do matters, then all of a sudden we have room for charity again. There are multiple ways to do charity. One can steal from the rich for having the audacity to be successful, and then give that money to the poor in a very impersonal manner. I think that sucks. But you can also give charity personally, especially charity of the sort that builds up. I end up sacrificing some of my time in medical school to help out some of the other students. Does this make me less valuable than them? Well, it does make my ego smaller than if I selfishly clung to all of my time for myself, or than if I resented them the whole time for taking up my time. But in helping them I am building up other people. It’s really a small price to pay to help others out. I am no fan of utilitarianism, which strips people of their individual worth. But it is entirely different to help out an individual person for the sake of their worth. Now do all have the same worth? In as much as we are all in the image and likeness of God: yes. Do all have the same level of talent or excellence: no. There are people out there who simply did not receive many gifts from God in the talent department. Worse yet, there are people who did receive gifts but are incredibly lazy. Does Catholicism require that we wear ourselves to the ground to help people whether they are willing or not? No. Even the apostles were told (Matthew 10) that if someone were not receptive to their word, that they should shake the dust off their feet and move on. But many people are out there who would be receptive, they just need someone to go to them.

I will close on this thought. Even Objectivism requires sacrifice, if by sacrifice is meant a great exertion or heroic effort. Roark must have given great sacrifice (in the sense described above) to learn to be such an excellent architect and to put those skills into practice. The difference is that he immediately felt fulfilled by what he had accomplished. I ask you, what is more satisfying objectively: to build a building or to build up a man? I propose that Roark’s worldview is childish and poorly formed if he cannot see more worth in improving a man. If he is capable of seeing the primacy of true charity, which builds men up, then perhaps his Objectivism is not only salvageable, but potentially even compatible with Catholicism. If not, he is a fool.

 

[utunumsint]

Have you read Pope John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility? I don’t know much about Ayn Rand, but from what little I was able to glean from wikipedia, the terms of the philosophy seem to match (supperficially at least) with the of the Pope’s in Love and Responsibility.

The Pope starts off his reflections on human sexuality by defining some philosophical terms, and he insists first of all that human persons are subjects in an objective sense. He does not want to use the term subjective, because he wanted to emphasise the realness of the object “Person”.

Anyway, I’m not expert in the book or in philosophy, but I found it very interesting. He builds a whole ethical system based on the fact that no human being wants to be an object of “use” and distinguishes utilitarianism from what real love should be: something that respects the innate value of the person.

I don’t know if this would be of interest. Let me know if you want more information. I can possibly give you some quotes.

Oh, I found this: catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html

Here are some quotes from the pdf you can download.

Love’s Objective Dimension
How can we know if a love is objectively good? For the character Christopher in the Holy Father’s play, The Jeweler’s Shop, only one question is important: Is it creative?

Here we arrive at the true grandeur of love: We each have the capacity to create, to give birth to give new life to others both physically, in the form of children, and spiritually, in a legacy of inspired friends and neighbors.

God bless,
Ut

 

[MarkInOregon]

I consider myself well versed in Catholicism, and I spent many years engaged in intense apologetics with non-Catholics. I am a cradle Catholic, and have studied the majority of Catholic doctrine in depth. I can honestly say that Catholicism is the only philosophically tenable Christian faith. All the sects of protestantism and others are subject to significant philosophical and logical flaws.

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. People take offense at her endorsement of selfish motivation above all else, but she explicitly states, and anyone who reads her material would see, that she uses these words in an entirely different context than the definition society generally applies. How can one disagree with the purity of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead?

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?

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.

What does Altruism have to do with Catholicism or other forms of Christianity. As I understand it Altruism is unselfish regard for or devotion for or devotion to the welfare of others. As Catholics we act out of love for the other person. I would posit that there is a fundamental difference between acting out of “unselfish regard” and out of love. I have to go or I would try to elaborate on this more fully. If I get time I will come back.

Peace,
Mark

 

[lothariorowe]

Perhaps you are thinking too much!

Listen to your heart, not your mind.

But you misunderstand, that’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m following my heart, instead of society’s standards.

The problem with trying to attain ‘happiness’ for yourself is that it is temporary, incomplete, fleeting & impossible. True fulfillment only comes from Agape Love. The total self-giving love that sacrifices everything for another.
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.

 

[lothariorowe]

Still, even if this were the case happiness could be taken from you by events unconnected to people. You can develop a slow and progressive form of dementia; you can break a leg; you can have depression; you can loose your talent as an artist. I guess part of the Christian message is exactly that you cannot take full control of your own happiness or destiny; your only hope is to open yourself to reality (people, animals, objects) and humbly expect God to fill your heart with joy.

I disagree completely. You make the mistake of thinking that people with a broken bone or illness are condemned to unhappiness. Sure in rare instances, such as depression, one by definition is unhappy, but the difference is that this has nothing to do with subjugating one’s own interests to the interests of others. The ultimate objection I have with altruism is the placing of another’s interests above your own.

 

[utunumsint]

How can placing focus on personal happiness possibly be misconstrued as “downright evil?”

Of course Rand is referring to a deeply fulfilling happiness, as opposed to the shallow whims I’m sure many think of when referring to “whatever makes me happy.”

Have you read the Fountainhead? Your quote is very ‘Toohey.’ Personal happiness is presented in the form of Roark creating beautiful architecture that he believes in, and never compromising for the whims of any client, social standard, or competitor. While others scamper about to build and do whatever makes them look the best, make the most money, be the most famous, garner the most social praise, Roark only designs and builds because it alone makes him profoundly happy, and such, through an uncompromising and clear understanding of his personal happiness, he remains as the only truly happy and fulfilled individual among the other people running around that have made mirrors of themselves. Roark positioned himself in such a way, that no person had the power to take away his happiness. The happiness of the others, those who served the people, could be taken away over night. “I don’t build so that I have clients. I have clients so that I can build.”

I think this point of view sums up our current culture. What ever you do, make sure you are personally fulfilled, and as authentic as you can be.

Its not about what’s “best for you.” Its about what fulfills and makes you happy.

Have you read Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age? Very interesting.

Here is a review if you are interested:guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/08/society1

Serving others is fine, but when self-sacrifice is required to gain any personal merit, it develops some major problems. The idea of trying to become the least of men for the purpose of becoming the greatest is glaringly contradictory. I take issue with that.

Second, if a person does truly and genuinely serve others in a self sacrificial way, without any hidden desire or goal beyond the pure act of simple self sacrificial service, then it naturally devalues you below the person being served. Or in other words, what makes them more valuable than you, to the point that it is better for you to sacrifice yourself in servitude to them, rather then to yourself? Why are they more deserving of your time than your own self?

I tend to follow the Augustinian idea that all service rendered onto God is possible because God alone fulfills completely. Agape, ultimatly, depends on grace from God, and is in a sense God’s love itself.

Also, what merits such a universal necessity to sacrifice and to serve everyone else - anyone else besides oneself? Unconditional love for everybody, regardless of the person, naturally devalues everybody. We should be able to give love to people precisely because of who and what they are deserves it - not just because they exist.

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

Fair enough. But when you consider that all people ultimatly owe their existence to one all sufficient creator, then there is never any being that is truly completly unworthy of love by the very fact that they are created by the hand of God. This was, in a very real way, the message of Saint Francis of Assissi…

It’s not an issue of whether God exists or not. Rather, its with regard to his teachings. It doesn’t make sense that he would be the creator of you, love you more than any known love, view you as a special creation unlike any other, and not want your happiness as your utmost priority, but rather put the happiness of others as a priority over your own happiness.

But what about the parable of the pearl of great price? That pearl is ultimate happiness. Everything else must be sold in order to purchase this pearl. That is why Jesus said to the rich man, “If you would be truly good, sell all your possessions and follow me.” In this relationship with God, one become a cocreator with him by participating in God’s own love.

I could never demand that it is the duty of others to make my own self happy, and I could never believe that it is my moral duty to sacrifice myself for the happiness of others. I view myself as a self sufficient person, capable of fulfilling my own happiness internally - without need or want of any assistance from any other person. I don’t need to go to clubs or bars, or to be praised or hugged, or to be #1 or to have money in order to be happy. I give no 3rd party supreme power over my personal emotions. I am the means to my own happiness. If happiness is given to you by prestige, or power, or fame, or popularity, then it is ultimately given to you by people, and it can likewise be taken from you by people without you ultimately having any control over your own happiness. I refuse to be out of control of my own happiness. How can this be evil? How can God not want us to understand this?

There can be no happiness in solitude. Wouldn’t you agree? Just imagine having everything you could ever want, and yet not being able to share it with anyone, so that they can say, “It is good.” Wouldn’t that be emptiness itself? No one is truly self sufficient. God created us to be relational beings. Not isolated and alone.

What you say has some merit though, in the sense that all human relations are ultimatly transient. People die, people go away, betray, hurt you, etc… That is why true happiness if found in God alone, who alone is everlasting, indestructible. This alone explains why the hermit does not go insane. He or she is never alone, but is in constant communion with the Triune God.

God bless,
Ut

 

[FCEGM]

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

If one knows Jesus, the so-called “purity” of Howard Roark (rapist and fornicator) - or John Galt - pales, to say the least.

A critique of interest on Ayn Rand and Objectivism:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5833&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=564736

An excerpt:

In her book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden tells us how Ms. Rand managed to make the lives of everyone around her miserable, and when her life was over, she had barely a friend in the world. She was contemptuous even of her followers. When Rand was laid to rest in 1982 at the age of 77, her coffin bore a six-foot replica of the dollar sign. Her philosophy, which she adopted from an early age, helped to assure her solitude: “Nothing existential gave me any great pleasure. And progressively, as my idea developed, I had more and more a sense of loneliness.” It was inevitable, however, that a philosophy that centered on the self to the exclusion of all others would leave its practitioner in isolation and intensely lonely.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is unlivable, either by her or anyone else. A philosophy that is unlivable can hardly be instrumental in building a Culture of Life. It is unlivable because it is based on a false anthropology. The human being is not a mere individual, but a person. As such, he is a synthesis of individual transcendent being. He is more than his individuality.

And, yes, I’ve read her works and was infatuated with them in my teens, even writing her a fan letter - many years ago.

So as to your initial question: How Does One Resolve the Differences Between Catholicism and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism?

One doesn’t. Trying to serve two masters never works.

 

[utunumsint]

If one knows Jesus, the so-called “purity” of Howard Roark (rapist and fornicator) - or John Galt - pales, to say the least.

A critique of interest on Ayn Rand and Objectivism:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5833&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=564736

An excerpt:

And, yes, I’ve read her works and was infatuated with them in my teens, even writing her a fan letter - many years ago.

So as to your initial question: How Does One Resolve the Differences Between Catholicism and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism?

One doesn’t. Trying to serve two masters never works.

Great article from Donald Demarco. He also has a chapter on Ayn Rand in his book, the Architects of the Culture of Death, if I recall correctly.

Very good book. It shows how each philosophical system builds on each other to create our current societal outlook. I would say that Taylor is much more positive about our Secular age, but I felt at a loss as to how he could justify his Catholicism in the end.

God bless,
Ut

 

[ChadS]

Here’s an article that reviews two recent biographies of Rand. She sounded like quite a bitter person with little joy in her life. If she lived the philosophy she described in her works and they produced her then I doubt I’d want to even try and reconcile its tenents with Christianity.

slate.com/id/2233966/

ChadS