E
EphelDuath
Guest
Are Catholics to condemn Objectivism for its focus on self-accomplishment before anything else, or are parts of Randian philosophy compatible with Catholicism?
- Status
R
ribozyme
Guest
You’ll get a few people attracted to this philosophy here.
I
Isambard
Guest
No, Rand was against religion. I’d also say the dogmatic worship of free-market capitalism might also be against acceptance by the church.
B
beeliner
Guest
An angry, pathetic, despicable human being.
I attended a lecture by her once at the University of Chicago, where I was employed at the time.
Following the lecture, she took questions from the audience, but if anyone disagreed with her (and everyone did), she would begin shouting insults at them.
I can guarantee that if anyone had had tomatoes, they would have been thrown.
My the Lord have mercy on her soul.
Z
zdon011
Guest
Just like Christopher Hitchens, minus the alcoholism
I don’t like Ayn Rand’s philosophy at all, based on what I’ve read. It didn’t help that she was cited by a certain prominent ‘Satanist’ as a major influence of his
J
John_Paul_Jones
Guest
She [Ayn Rand] remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend “three A’s”—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. - from wikipedia
Whether she was serious about Aristotle and Aquinas or just mentioned them tongue in cheek because they where the only “A” philosophers she could think that would match her name - where they only used for the effect of alliteration?
I really don’t know enough about her writings to know if she was influenced by Aquinas or Aristotle.
Whether she was serious about Aristotle and Aquinas or just mentioned them tongue in cheek because they where the only “A” philosophers she could think that would match her name - where they only used for the effect of alliteration?
I really don’t know enough about her writings to know if she was influenced by Aquinas or Aristotle.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rand was an epistemological and moral objectivist without a really good argument for the latter since she was also an atheist. She worshiped the power of Reason … Reason was her God, but she could be intensely irrational when it suited her purpose. She was a very angry egotist who sooner or later alienated most of the people who were drawn to her influence. Consistent with her egotism, she deliberately wrecked the marriage of a young couple that were her devoted followers and took the husband for her lover.
If there is anything good to say about her, it is mainly that she tossed a rather explosive grenade at socialism and its attendant evils. God rest her angry heart!
If there is anything good to say about her, it is mainly that she tossed a rather explosive grenade at socialism and its attendant evils. God rest her angry heart!
Z
zdon011
Guest
It was nothing but sheer, facetious conceit for Ms Rand to rank herself with great souls like Aristotle and Aquinas.
There is nothing great or noble in Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
In a thousand years, the name of ‘Ayn Rand’ will mean nothing, but the logic of Aristotle and faith of Aquinas will live on.
S
slywakka250
Guest
Ayn Rand and her personality and faults can be separated from objectivism to some extent. Overall I am a fan of her philosophy, but only to take pieces out of it that I like. Her arguments for capitalism to me are very convincing, She is also to me a sharp contrast to the postmodern philosophy which dominates my philosophical thinking, giving me perhaps a link back to the existence of logic, and meaningfulness of reason, so that someday I can actually read Aristotle again, and not doubt everything he says…
M
mcteague
Guest
I have never met a single person claiming to follow her philosophy who was not simply justifying their lack of what I might call Christian values. Which I would describe, leaving God out of it for a moment, broadly as caring about other people. I find Ayn Rand followers to be deeply flawed individuals psychologically, and rather unpleasant.
If you want to read someone outside the church who values the individual, but does not contain the viciousness and selfishness of Rand, I would suggest Emerson. Self reliance advocates for the individual, but does revere the lowest elements of our nature
If you want to read someone outside the church who values the individual, but does not contain the viciousness and selfishness of Rand, I would suggest Emerson. Self reliance advocates for the individual, but does revere the lowest elements of our nature
A
awatkins69
Guest
We should plug the oil spill with her books.
Seriously. She’s not a logical or rational philosopher at all. Just lots of bare assertions.
Seriously. She’s not a logical or rational philosopher at all. Just lots of bare assertions.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
I tried reading a couple of her books. Boring! Very Boring. Total waste of time.
J
JAGCath28
Guest
I’ve read Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. I found them both to be very interesting and very telling about the dangers of socialist values. There were things in Atlas Shrugged that I didn’t like such as the affair between the main characters or her obvious disgust for organized religion. However I think that a mixture of objectivism into our philosophy is a good thing. She came from Russia, and I believe that her life there had a profound impact on her writings which spurned her not so quite disdain for anything communal. She saw what communism would do to a nation, and in my opinion, didn’t want to see the same thing happen here to a country who had such a unique birth and form of government.
After I read Atlas Shrugged, I made a comment to some friends that Objectivism + God = good. By this I mean that there should be a respect for individual rights and capitalism, but that as Christians, we go above and beyond this to live as Christ would by applying the fruits of our labor in ways that would bring glory and honor to God. We have to remember that as humans we have individual rights, but in reality we are merely Stewards of Providence. Atlas Shrugged is very “prophetic” in the sense that it clearly shows what happens when you let a government take over the distribution of wealth, requiring those who can work to work, and those who aren’t as capable or unwilling to just reap the benefits. That is un-Christian. Even Paul writes:
After I read Atlas Shrugged, I made a comment to some friends that Objectivism + God = good. By this I mean that there should be a respect for individual rights and capitalism, but that as Christians, we go above and beyond this to live as Christ would by applying the fruits of our labor in ways that would bring glory and honor to God. We have to remember that as humans we have individual rights, but in reality we are merely Stewards of Providence. Atlas Shrugged is very “prophetic” in the sense that it clearly shows what happens when you let a government take over the distribution of wealth, requiring those who can work to work, and those who aren’t as capable or unwilling to just reap the benefits. That is un-Christian. Even Paul writes:
Unfortunately, a friend of mine who converted to Catholocism in college, read Ayn Rand and became an athiest. He eventually came back to God, but is now a Lutheran minister (because he wanted to be married and be a priest and couldn’t do both in the Catholic Church) and is very liberal on policies such as SS marriage, abortion, etc. For the mature Catholic, who is strong in their faith, I don’t see any problem with reading her books and looking at her philosophy, but I guess there are many people who will be harmed by her opinions.
A
AdvanceAlways
Guest
Same here. Her explanations on capitalism are what we need in society today. I don’t like how she replaces God with the market. We need God but we also need the free market.
So to the Rand critics, please realize that while she may have felt one way, those of us who admire her works are not all crazed atheists. Market capitalism is perfectly suitable with Catholicism as long as we don’t put the market above God.
A
awatkins69
Guest
I’m very apprehensive about the extent to which free market capitalism is reconcilable with Catholic teaching. It is somewhat okay, but not the way I think libertarians conceive of it. Definitely not the way Rand’s laissez-faire type think of it. I prefer communitarianism.
“Just as the unity of human society cannot be built upon “class” conflict, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to the free play of rugged competition. From this source, as from a polluted spring, have proceeded all the errors of the “individualistic” school. This school, forgetful or ignorant of the social and moral aspects of economic activities, regarded these as completely free and immune from any intervention by public authority, for they would have in the market place and in unregulated competition a principle of self direction more suitable for guiding them than any created intellect which might intervene. Free competition, however, though justified and quite useful within certain limits, cannot be an adequate controlling principle in economic affairs. This has been abundantly proved by the consequences that have followed from the free rein given to these dangerous individualistic ideas. It is therefore very necessary that economic affairs be once more subjected to and governed by a true and effective guiding principle (no. 88).” - Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno
“Just as the unity of human society cannot be built upon “class” conflict, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to the free play of rugged competition. From this source, as from a polluted spring, have proceeded all the errors of the “individualistic” school. This school, forgetful or ignorant of the social and moral aspects of economic activities, regarded these as completely free and immune from any intervention by public authority, for they would have in the market place and in unregulated competition a principle of self direction more suitable for guiding them than any created intellect which might intervene. Free competition, however, though justified and quite useful within certain limits, cannot be an adequate controlling principle in economic affairs. This has been abundantly proved by the consequences that have followed from the free rein given to these dangerous individualistic ideas. It is therefore very necessary that economic affairs be once more subjected to and governed by a true and effective guiding principle (no. 88).” - Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno
F
FCEGM
Guest
Two articles of interest about her; one is very recent, the other a few years old:
christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=89260
authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html
christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=89260
authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html
L
lille
Guest
All things in the Objectivist philosophy are God given, whether you believe in God or not, that is a fact. Therefore you can certainly take Rand’s philosophy and reduce it to the fact that every individual chooses or rejects to do God’s will. Reason, free will, ethics, morality are all choices that God allows us to make for ourselves. He doesn’t expect us to be perfect, to be free of sin, or never make mistakes. Fortunately, He gave us a path to overcome all our Human weaknesses, Jesus Christ. You can still have an Objectivist philosophy as long as you recognize that your ability to prosper is totally a gift from a God, and so is choosing to use the fruits of your labor to help the less fortunate. I think both Rand and Christ would buy into the philosophy that “when you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but when you teach a man to fish he feeds himself for a lifetime.”
P
Paracelsus
Guest
Objectivism is for the most part unobjectionable even if I don’t agree with all of it. It’s sort of the philosophy of the oxygen mask rule for passengers traveling with a young child on an airplane. You first set up your own mask, then the child’s. Superficially, someone might call this selfish, buuuuut, if you don’t take care of yourself how can you take care of anyone else. It won’t do the kid any good for you to be sitting there getting blue in the face while he may still be struggling to get the mask on because you passed out in the process. Her economics and ethics are pretty much like the law of gravity explained a different way.
Her personal life was more than a bit hinky but, hey, the Church has had popes who had mistresses and children, etc., etc. Everyone’s got something. We would probably do better sticking to the specifics of what she has to say. Look for “The Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff.
Two particulars should be kept in mind. 1) She was a strict atheist (but that doesn’t necessarily mean other things she said didn’t hold water); 2) She was pro-abortion, at least at the time Peikoff referenced to when he wrote his book on her philosophy. Her abortion statements supposedly were restricted to the fetus (of course, no one is giving out awards from the RCC for that position). I wonder, however, if she wouldn’t have changed her position later in life, when the issue of partial birth abortions came up and she saw where abortion was going, and so forth? One would have thought she would have caught on to this earlier since she was so savvy about socialism and communism.
In any event, from the 30’s to the 70’s she was telling people the truth about collectivist philosophy and economics, which she had learned first hand by living under the Soviet Union. A lot of famous, supposedly intelligent and well-placed people got it all wrong for decades and became what the Communist Willi Muezenberg called “useful idiots.” If the political “elites” of the USA and the US Dept of State had had their way, we would still have the USSR right now building airfields in Central America (or Texas). [Now, all we have is a Red Chinese “company” running the Panama Canal - so everything turned out for the best, I guess?] Of course, as we have seen from experience, their “elites” and our “elites” seem to have similar goals and interests on too many occasions.
Her book “Atlas Shrugged” reads sort of like a long nightmare one might have about the Obama administration and the American political scene after Ronald Reagan. You won’t realize how true that last sentence is until you read her book.
Was she the greatest novelist in history? Probably not - although her early book, “We the Living,” should be considered a 20th c. classic. Was she the greatest philosopher of all times - probably not. But, she knew that a leftist is a Communist without bullets, that a socialist is just Communism spelled differently, and that Communism was the Ebola virus of politics. I think her atheism and her abortion stance related more to her personal issues and I think could have changed over time.
The best thing to do, of course, is see for yourself. Start with “We the Living!” and look at the rest of her fiction. Her non-fiction isn’t bad either. She gave a heck of speech to the graduating class at West Point. Test all things.
Her personal life was more than a bit hinky but, hey, the Church has had popes who had mistresses and children, etc., etc. Everyone’s got something. We would probably do better sticking to the specifics of what she has to say. Look for “The Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff.
Two particulars should be kept in mind. 1) She was a strict atheist (but that doesn’t necessarily mean other things she said didn’t hold water); 2) She was pro-abortion, at least at the time Peikoff referenced to when he wrote his book on her philosophy. Her abortion statements supposedly were restricted to the fetus (of course, no one is giving out awards from the RCC for that position). I wonder, however, if she wouldn’t have changed her position later in life, when the issue of partial birth abortions came up and she saw where abortion was going, and so forth? One would have thought she would have caught on to this earlier since she was so savvy about socialism and communism.
In any event, from the 30’s to the 70’s she was telling people the truth about collectivist philosophy and economics, which she had learned first hand by living under the Soviet Union. A lot of famous, supposedly intelligent and well-placed people got it all wrong for decades and became what the Communist Willi Muezenberg called “useful idiots.” If the political “elites” of the USA and the US Dept of State had had their way, we would still have the USSR right now building airfields in Central America (or Texas). [Now, all we have is a Red Chinese “company” running the Panama Canal - so everything turned out for the best, I guess?] Of course, as we have seen from experience, their “elites” and our “elites” seem to have similar goals and interests on too many occasions.
Her book “Atlas Shrugged” reads sort of like a long nightmare one might have about the Obama administration and the American political scene after Ronald Reagan. You won’t realize how true that last sentence is until you read her book.
Was she the greatest novelist in history? Probably not - although her early book, “We the Living,” should be considered a 20th c. classic. Was she the greatest philosopher of all times - probably not. But, she knew that a leftist is a Communist without bullets, that a socialist is just Communism spelled differently, and that Communism was the Ebola virus of politics. I think her atheism and her abortion stance related more to her personal issues and I think could have changed over time.
The best thing to do, of course, is see for yourself. Start with “We the Living!” and look at the rest of her fiction. Her non-fiction isn’t bad either. She gave a heck of speech to the graduating class at West Point. Test all things.
- Paracelsus
E
edwest2
Guest
I was first encouraged to read Ayn Rand in the 1980s. I did not. More recently, I caught an interview Mike Wallace did with her back in the 1950s. She did not come across as a person I could relate to. Mr. Wallace even asked her about “being her brother’s keeper.” She seems to think everybody sinks or swims on their own.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
C
Christopher68
Guest
If Rand were alive today, I have no doubt that she would have had equal contempt for George W. Bush as well as Barack Obama. For that matter, I’m not even sure she would have liked Ronald Reagan all that much.
Obviously I disagree with Rand about religion. However, as a libertarian, there is much of her philosophy that I do not find objectionable at all. I have read “The Fountainhead” as well as “Atlas Shrugged”. “Atlas Shrugged” is quite good and highly recommended.
- Status