Right after my conversion, I read her book, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. It was great!!! I read everything she ever wrote and found her anaylisis to be correct. not bad for an athiest. Her critique of the church with it's blind dogmas was also right. If you can't objective "prove" what you worship, why bother? I mean she never insulted the bible or God. Just the church (the RCC is what it sounded like). but her statements about the philosophical roots of modernity's downfall are great. And Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart? Man what a couple that our country needs to revive our economy!!!! But what do y'all think of her stuff? Thanks for your input and feel free to rant away!

A Rush Limbaugh Smile ---->

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

Ayn Rand (not her real name, of course) (1904-1982): her "system," such as it is, is based on total and complete narcissism. Her ideal is summed up as: "it's all about me." She thought altruism was for suckers, Christianity was for suckers, etc.

All she really did was take self-centeredness to the next level.

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

"If anyone cries at my funeral I'll never speak to him again!" - Stan Laurel (1890-1965)

John Robbins wrote a good critique of Rand. I don't know if it is available online, but see here and here.

__________________
Chris
OPC member
Now attending Grace Community Baptist Church
Mandeville, LA

"Faith alone saves, but it is a faith that works." - S. Lewis Johnson

Ayn Rand, in a real way, led me to Christ. That's because I read just about everything she wrote, tried to believe it, but found it crushingly hopeless in the end.

She did too, and I think she knew it.

To her credit, she cured me of relativism, which was a very good thing to be cured of.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Her writing style is (unfortunately) quite compelling.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

This philosophy is/was profoundly dominant in a college acquaintance of mine who remains the most thoroughly hedonistic, utterly selfish individual I've ever met. Some might say that ascetic virtue is promoted with Rand's philosophy, but all I saw was a depraved heart dramatically freed from inhibitions and the restraints of conscience.

In discussing Rand, I'd also note the sharp contrast between Libertarians in the stream of Rand and those drawing from the wells of classical liberalism or other strongly-restrain-the-government philosophies. While I am not libertarian in my political alignment, most of the justified criticism against libertarianism is a critique of the dominant wing's expression as applied Randianism

__________________
Scott - Dallas, Texas - PCA

"It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do." - Edmund Burke

Hmm... You'all have given me something to ponder. I read those 2 critiques of her work. They seem to misrepresent what Faith is though. I mean if we have the kind of faith that the reviewers seemed to present, ours would be worthless.

I quote one of the reviews: "no man has yet established truth via his unaided intellect. Objectivism has not changed that fact, for it shares the axiom of autonomy with other secular philosophies. It, too, will be eclipsed by a new surge of skepticism, and rightly so, for it has furnished no good reasons for believing in the ability of the human mind to create a system of knowledge." Actually, she makes a good case for knowledge based on the human mind. Yea, its Aristotelian, but she unshackles it from the group think our scientists use today. Knowledge is not determined by the masses. And from the quote of this specific forum, we know not to base our philosophy on the things of this world. Col 2:8

They also misrepresnt her philosophy on one foot.

You have heard it said:

"Metaphysics: Indestructible Matter
Epistemology: Skepticismp
Ethics: Hedonism
Politics: Anarchism"

But I say unto you it's really:

Metaphysics: objective reality
Epistemology: reason
Ethics:self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
at least that's what she really said. now for the commentary

Now, Objective reality is not indestructible matter. If she talks about intellect, how is that indestructible matter? Reality exists..we need to see it as such. ie like is not God objectively real?? we don't need blind faith or even faith in something that is unreasonable to believe. Which leads to the next -

Epistemology - reason. This is where she would say "check your premises" and the one part that I would disagree with her about. But this is the part of philosophy that deals with how do we know what we know? Yes I'm going VanTill on y'all. That is why her critique of the church is dead on. They say and most still do say that we take things on faith. That's just rubbish or as she called them, the voodoo doctors of the primative savages. There is nothing unreasonable about God. There's a difference between apprehension and fully understanding. But with her premise, yea, they do have a point. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Boy, do the liberals need to learn that!

Ethics: I wish we had more real self-interest instead of the Lets help the poor out junk in our society. That people would rather look good (Democrats) instead of doing Good(Haliburton and Exxon) is true. Even Joel Osteen's crowd that is full of self interest, and my own church's self-centered choruses are not real self interest. More like self-centeredness. She also talked about the welfare state. yes it sounds so pious, helping the little man out, but altruism is for suckers is true. Especially since it is at the point of a gun (or even God will not be pleased, which is spiritual blackmail) There is a difference between altruism and compassion.

Politics - Capitalism. Well if I have to explain, lazzie-fare means the government stays out of it, not anarchy. Our problems in the business sector is because of the government, not big business. Big business is what is good for America and our freedoms. And my paycheck. (I wish. I'm just a cook, but when the rich get richer, they go out to eat more, which provides me with more ways and more $$ to feed my family)

Anyway, great thoughts. I've read reviews, it seems the secularists don't like her at all either, and I'm finding out the Christian camp doesn't either. But feel free to rant on. I remain interested. Grymir

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

Godless Capitalism!

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Rand is sort of like a presuppositionalist, except her presupposition is her own awareness of her self. Her starting point is basically the self-evident proposition “A is A”. From that she gets “I am that I am.” From that blasphemy, you can figure out where she is going.

Man’s mind is the objective standard of all things. Nothing has meaning unless it is interpreted by man. Nothing is worth knowing that can’t be experienced or known by man. And finally, man’s senses are the starting point for obtaining knowledge. Man’s reason is both the fundamental tool and the standard.

Her epistemology is pretty shallow, but functional: She doesn’t ask where reason comes from, she takes it as a given. In that sense, she could join with those who believe in a creator. Except she rejects a creator—not because of lack of evidence or because of logic, but because she assumes from the start that one is not needed.

That last assumption is what always trips them up. I once was a genuine card-carrying Objectivist. I went to seminars. One of the big shots I heard was Andrew Bernstein. The guy was considered “Mr. Objectivist.” In reality he was a prig and an insecure brat in a grown body.

His seminar was on one or another theme in Atlas Shrugged, but it really was a launching pad to discuss objectivist ethics. He spent a bit of time reviewing basic logical fallacies, talking especially about how to watch for the argument from intimidation.

OK, so far so good. We had a break. Out in the convention center hallway was a desk with refreshments for a Christian seminar in another room. Bernstein schmoozed with the people and walked away with some pastries and a cup of coffee. He came back in our room and said, “Look what I scored from the stinking Christians. Those fools don’t have a logical thought in their brain, but they put out a good spread.”

Well, I don’t know why, but that set me off. I asked, “What kind of ethic are you demonstrating with your contempt for someone generous?”

His response was something like this: “Excuse me? Why are you attacking me? These people believe in voodoo!”

Me: “Do you have any idea what they believe?”

Bernie: “Well they believe in some god, which we all know is impossible.”

Then I pointed out that it was his assumption that said God was impossible, not his epistemology. His epistemology rejects God at the beginning so it couldn’t be used as proof that God did not exist. And so forth.

Well, Bernstein started making threats, saying I should be kicked out (no, I wasn’t leaving because I paid money to be there). He walked right up to where I was sitting, bent over into my face, and started yelling that I had no business messing up a pleasant time with like-minded people. At that point I laughed and said, “What was that you were saying about the argument from intimidation?”

The room broke out in laughter, Bernstein fumed and stormed out of the room for a good half hour. Finally someone got him to come back and he finished his lecture, all the while giving me dirty looks.

You know them by their fruits.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Hi VictorBravo! you are so right! As a late comer, I read here stuff in the 90's, after she had long passed away (yea, it bugged me that I won't get to talk to her in the after life). Her followers didn't seem to have her sense of reason. To quote you

"Her epistemology is pretty shallow, but functional: She doesn’t ask where reason comes from, she takes it as a given. In that sense, she could join with those who believe in a creator. Except she rejects a creator—not because of lack of evidence or because of logic, but because she assumes from the start that one is not needed."

That is true, we know that reason and logic come from God. I used her epistemology in college and befuddled the philosophy department. they were on the far left as I am the right. Kantian and Hegalian to the core. But one day the head said to me, "Tim, you have the most logical consistant world view I have ever seen." We used to gang up together on the moderates.

I loved hearing how you used their own logic against them at the seminar. Her followers are another matter altogether. They do not epitimise what I read in her work. Thanks for the Post, you've given me stuff to think about while at work. God Bless!!

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA