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

[Contarini]

What other motivation is there to giving oneself in love to others other than avoidance of Hell/attainment of Heaven? Also, what do you mean by “giving oneself in love to others”?

Why would someone go through the pains of brutal death as a martyr if they could deny their faith AND still enter into Heaven? Why would someone spend their life serving others at the expense of themselves if they could do whatever they wanted AND still enter Heaven?

If “heaven” and “hell” were extrinsic rewards and punishments, you would be right, and Christianity would be a thoroughly contemptible religion.

But as I understand Christianity, there is no way for a person whose desires are ruled by love not to be in heaven when freed from the limitations of this existence, and similarly no way for a person whose will is irretrievably turned in on itself not to be in hell. And that’s why your question about choosing one’s own damnation is a nonsense question. Heaven is not a zero-sum game. It’s not competitive. If the question you ask were meaningful, Christianity would be false.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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”).

Well, if we are to be criticized for talking about Rand without reading her, what are we to say of this great philosopher Rand who thinks she can characterize the Middle Ages by one quote from Augustine and another from Tertullian, and doesn’t bother to mention Aquinas?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Also, you forget that Hell is the presence of immense physical torments that just about anyone would want to avoid.

I don’t “forget” anything of the kind. I don’t know if there are physical torments in hell. Given that Scripture speaks of the resurrection of the body for both the righteous and the wicked, I think that there may well be such torments. Throw a lot of wicked people together and they will certainly torment each other.

But a damned person is someone who is no longer capable of choosing anything but hell. Of course such a person won’t want to be tormented–he or she will want to dominate and torment others.

Read Sartre’s No Exit.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The eternal resting place for one’s own soul is the primary motivating factor for a Christian - a point not up for argument.

Sure it is. Calvin would say (and did say, against Sadoleto) that the primary motivating factor should be God’s glory.

The Protestant Reformers denied that we should seek our own salvation above that of others. That was an important plank in sola fide, which many people don’t seem to understand. The followers of Jonathan Edwards in the late 18th century even suggested that one mark of the elect would be the willingness to be damned for the glory of God.

I think that this was the wrong road, but like so much else in the Reformation it was a reaction to (and at the same time an extension of) the extrinsic, legalistic, merit-centered thinking of certain strands of late medieval Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[aspirant]

If “heaven” and “hell” were extrinsic rewards and punishments, you would be right, and Christianity would be a thoroughly contemptible religion.

Well said.

 

[aspirant]

what are we to say of this great philosopher Rand who thinks she can characterize the Middle Ages by one quote from Augustine and another from Tertullian, and doesn’t bother to mention Aquinas?

Augustine and Tertullian are not even medieval. And the latter was a heretic.

 

[aspirant]

This thread reminds me of the Litany of Humility written by Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val,
Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X:

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being extolled,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being honored,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being praised,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being preferred to others,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being consulted,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being approved,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being humiliated,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being despised,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of suffering rebukes,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being calumniated,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being forgotten,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being ridiculed,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being wronged,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being suspected,
Deliver me, Jesus.

That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be chosen and I set aside,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be praised and I unnoticed,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be preferred to me in everything,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may become holier than I,
provided that I may become as holy as I should,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

 

[Contarini]

Augustine and Tertullian are not even medieval. And the latter was a heretic.

Exactly. It’s certainly fair to cite Augustine, since he was indeed a huge influence on medieval theology, but the Tertullian quote was ridiculous.

Edwin

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Good try but I think it is rather you who need to correct your misinterpretations of Ms. Rand’s philosophy.

 

[ChadS]

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.

I don’t see how o_mlly quote is taking things out of context. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me … unless of course the Ayn Rand institute isn’t faithfully representing her positions. The quote does talk about an “alleged” need to be fruitful and multiply … that doesn’t sound compatible with the Catholic faith does it?

How can you be done correcting misrepresentations when you haven’t begun yet? So far the vast majority of your advice on this thread is to read Any Rand’s books (mostly her fiction, because it seems her non-fiction doesn’t get the point across quite as well). You’ve set yourself up on here as the only one that really gets it and you deride all our attempts to understand her philosophy or argue a contrary position. I’ve just seen a bunch of gainsaying on your part and when pressed for explanations you say “read the book,” “I’m not here to explain her works,” or “I’m not going to summarize anything.”

ChadS

 

[michaelgazin]

My purpose for the thread was not to inform individuals, but rather to speak with informed individuals. Having read the work that Rand is known for, I read all these quotes with a completely different perspective than the analysis being given, and there is no way i’d be able to explain why, nor do I care to spend time trying. As said before, I really had no intention in this thread to discuss the issue with those who haven’t read her famous work. Sorry if I didn’t properly verbalize that earlier.

 

[itinerant1]

You might be interested in the brief article by J. Dolhenty in which he argues that Objectivism is a materialist philosophy: Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

 

[Pax]

One might also ask…could “objectivism” produce a Mother Theresa of Calcutta?

 

[itinerant1]

One might also ask…could “objectivism” produce a Mother Theresa of Calcutta?

That’s probably not a good comparison, i.e. Objectivism and Mother Theresa. Objectivism is a philosophy, and not all that good of a philosophy, while Mother Theresa represents the high level of spirituality attainable as a Catholic. Not even Protestantism produces anything like the Catholic Saints. This can be seen by comparing the lives of the great Catholic saints of Catholicism with any Protestant’s list of their saints.

Rand’s Objectivism did not lead her to living a truly virtuous life. This can be seen in many ways. I’ll just mention one situation here. Nathaniel Branden created the Nathaniel Branden Institute to promote Rand’s philosophy. Branden and Rand became lovers. In 1964 Nathaniel Branden began an affair with a young actress by the name Patricia Scott (whom he later married.) Branden and Scott hid their affair from Rand.

Rand and Branden at some point (?) broke off their love affair, but Rand felt dissed by Branden and became very extremely vindictive toward him. Rand intentionally ruined Branden publicly by publishing an article in the “Objectivist” journal about Branden’s dishonesty and irrational behavior in his private life. As a result, the NBI had to be shut down.

While the value or truth contained one’s philosophy is independent of the person’s moral character, we see that Rand’s Objectivism did not guide her in living a virtuous life. The account above of this one part of Rand’s life is characterized by fornication or promiscuity, uncontrolled anger, hatred and vindictiveness - a not so uncommon occurrence in these kind of “love” triangles. Promiscuity and uncontrolled emotions are not the mark of a true philosopher. By comparison, the virtuous life of Socrates was the life a true philosopher seeking the truth and living by the truth discovered, which includes ethical truth.

Regarding the religious life, Mother Theresa’s life is like a breath of fresh air. Also, the classical philosophy endorsed by the Church, with its highest expression found in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, is another breath of fresh air, both in itself and when when compared to the philosophical errors of Objectivism.

 

[nsper7]

One might also ask…could “objectivism” produce a Mother Theresa of Calcutta?

In theory, yes. After all, was she not storing up treasures and ensuring her entry into Heaven through all her good works?

Remember, one could argue that the major difference between a Christian and an atheist is how long-term their thinking is.

 

[itinerant1]

In theory, yes. After all, was she not storing up treasures and ensuring her entry into Heaven through all her good works?

Remember, one could argue that the major difference between a Christian and an atheist is how long-term their thinking is.

I must disagree. It is not the works by themselves that matter in regard to one’s spiritual merit. It the supernatural gift of charity through which those works are done that makes the real difference. The virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love are what distinguish the Christian disposition and motives for acting from the motives and acts of non-believers.

 

[aspirant]

one could argue that the major difference between a Christian and an atheist is how long-term their thinking is.

Hardly.

 

[nsper7]

I must disagree. It is not the works by themselves that matter in regard to one’s spiritual merit. It the supernatural gift of charity through which those works are done that makes the real difference. The virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love are what distinguish the Christian disposition and motives for acting from the motives and acts of non-believers.

But what is the motivation to have faith, hope and love? In the end, does it not come back to avoidance of Hell/desire for Heaven?

Hardly.

An atheist worries about their physical life. A Christian worries about eternity.

One reads of individuals who make great sacrifices in order to improve their later years (i.e. they start a business and live a meager life, but they end up wealthy in their retirement). How is that much different from a Christian who makes sacrifices in this life because they hope to have a great afterlife?

The only difference is how long-term they think (a few decades vs. an eternity).

 

[aspirant]

But what is the motivation to have faith, hope and love?

Love.

In the end, does it not come back to avoidance of Hell/desire for Heaven?

You appear to understand heaven as something other than communion in God’s love and hell as something other than refusal of God’s love. If so, that’s not a Catholic view of heaven and hell.

A Christian worries about eternity.

A Christian in love with God has no need for any worry. Love casts out fear.

How is that much different from a Christian who makes sacrifices in this life because they hope to have a great afterlife?

The Christian will never stop offering himself to God and his saints. Ever. There is no reward apart from this.

 

[itinerant1]

But what is the motivation to have faith, hope and love? In the end, does it not come back to avoidance of Hell/desire for Heaven?

Not necessarily. There is no rule of thumb for everybody. Many believers are initially motivated by a fear of Hell and a desire for Heaven knowing that we choose our own destiny. Eventually one matures beyond this initial disposition as he grows in the love of God, who is Love itself, and because it is Him who first loved us.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And one who is in love with the Lord will fear to offend Him because it would be an offense against one who is infinite goodness, and it is Him whom the soul loves most, i.e. loves more than anything in this present life.

An atheist worries about their physical life. A Christian worries about eternity.

One reads of individuals who make great sacrifices in order to improve their later years (i.e. they start a business and live a meager life, but they end up wealthy in their retirement). How is that much different from a Christian who makes sacrifices in this life because they hope to have a great afterlife?

The only difference is how long-term they think (a few decades vs. an eternity).

You just explained what is very radical difference, and then dismissed it as merely short-term versus long term thinking.

The one is only concerned for his earthly life as the end all, while the Christian is concerned more for eternal life, knowing this life is only a test of his love for God. No one in this life can be completely happy. True happiness is found only in complete union with God. Hence, the person who thinks of only the present life does not perceive the deeper realities of existence. He is blind to the mysteries of his own life.

Socrates’ dictum, in short, was “Know Thyself”. Your short-sighted atheist does not know himself. Socrates taught about virtue and deiformity, becoming like God, so as to prepare the soul for the afterlife.

The atheist prepares for nothing substantial or lasting. He views his life, whether consciously or not, as mere dust in the wind. He is, in the final analysis, radically distantiated from reality.