Ayn Rand and the Afterschooler

[jenbrdsly]

I'm starting this thread after hearing about Beth in SW's son reading Atlas Shrugged on an Afterschooling basis. I mentioned that her younger daughters could join in on the conversation if they had seen "Ratatouille" or "The Incredibles". (Full thread here.)

A couple of summers back I read Atlas Shrugged while nursing my daughter, and spent way too much time thinking about Ayn Rand. I also watched the movie The Passions of Ayn Rand, which is very graphic so don't have your teens watch it!

I think that summer my son and I were also reading the Little House on the Prairie Books, and so I also read The Ghost in the Little House which makes a good case for the theory that Rose Wilder Lane pretty much wrote the entire series, through her heavy editing.

If you are wondering what the connection is, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand are both considered the mothers of the Libertarian party. (But of course, I'm not meaning for this thread to be political at all.)

My own extended family runs the gamut from hard core atheist, to Jehovah Witness, Young Earth Creationist Conservatives, agnostics, and my own family which is moderate and belongs to the United Methodist church. Ayn Rand was a vocal atheist, but Rose Wilder Lane still went to church.

If you were to ask the atheists in my family about Ayn Rand, they would say "Oh yeah, I read that back in college." If you were to ask the YE Christian missionary side, they would say immediately "Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books of all time!" :001_huh::001_huh:

I really don't understand this at all. Have my relatives actually read Atlas Shrugged or are they repeating something they heard on the radio? I don't understand how you could be both pro missionary work in Ethiopia, and also pro John Galt. Ayn Rand was in favor of selfish living and the pursuit of money as the hallmarks of moral life. That’s pretty much the antithesis of Christianity.

That's not to say that I don't think it's great that Beth in SW Washington is having her son read Atlas Shrugged on an Afterschooling basis, because I think it's really awesome. Ayn Rand definitely has ideas that are interesting to think about and evaluate. How wonderful to do that with your son at an impressionable age. I just don't understand my relatives!

Thoughts (without getting political)?

[LMD]

Interesting topic! I'm not an afterschooler, please excuse me for jumping in, I just couldn't resist the title!

 

I'm a recent Rand convert, I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Foutainhead this year and loved them both. I'm also a conservative Christian. My DH is also a CC and loved it, my mother is an Athiest-leaning agnostic and loved it! ;) I'm also Australian, with little knowledge of American Politics - so I won't get political!

 

I do think that there are aspects of her philosophy that are incompatible with Christianity, but there are some important ideas that I think are parallelled in ideal Christian living.

 

 

Firstly, I think just selfishness on it's own is not an accurate description of her philosophy (as I interpret it), as in Atlas Shrugged she denounced some forms of selfishness as weak, self-deceptions, looting etc. IMO Her view of selfishness was to hold yourself to a high standard of life, thought, work, responsibility and follow it - I think most Christians can relate to that. I'm not convinced that her philosophy was the love and pursuit of money as morality (though this is just my opinion, could well be wrong ;)), as she portrays many financially successful characters as morally bankrupt - and many heroic characters as working not for the money alone but for their own standards. I guess I understood it as she believes in honest bargaining between two selfish (or self-respecting?) people who have a need and respect for the other's product/service. She frequently portrays as heroic characters who work menial jobs, who do it well and with self-respect (I'm thinking of builders in the Fountainhead), starving artists who cannot sacrifice their self-respect for the dollar etc.

 

 

secondly, altruism as defined by Rand as a cornerstone of Christianity. I really think this point needs to be simpler. Rand herself portrays her heroic characters as sacrificing something for someone they love, because love is a reflection of your self-respect - so the ultimate self-interest. Galt could be portrayed as the ultimate altruist - he gave up momentary success in his present world to 'save' others being looted and prepare a new and better world! But he did not compromise his values.

 

I have to go, but I'll come back. :)

 

you might enjoy this link http://www.commonsenseconcept.com/ayn-rand-v-jesus/

[Miss Marple]

If you were to ask the atheists in my family about Ayn Rand, they would say "Oh yeah, I read that back in college." If you were to ask the YE Christian missionary side, they would say immediately "Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books of all time!"

 

Haven't read Atlas yet, but intend to over the break because ds#2 wants to read it. But just responding to the idea that one can like something that one does not agree with: For instance, I loved The DaVinci Code but I totally don't agree with the premise. It is a great book, the author does a wonderful job of working the story...that makes me really like the book. But I don't *believe* the premise. It is a work of fiction done very well, IMO.

 

Could it be that those Christians who like Rand's book might be looking at it in the same way? Or perhaps they see a book looking at a philosophy which mirrors their real world experience (even if they don't believe in the philosophy)?

[Spy Car]

The problem is Ayn Rand's books are really boring, long, and ponderous. Her characters are cardboard cut-outs, with zero depth. And the ideology is dark and immoral.

 

Waste of time and trees.

 

Bill

[Parker Martin]

They're just reading critically. You can like some of her ideas (characterizations of political bureaucracy) while discarding others as outlandishly bad (selfishness as a guiding principle.)

[Spy Car]

They're just reading critically. You can like some of her ideas (characterizations of political bureaucracy) while discarding others as outlandishly bad (selfishness as a guiding principle.)

 

If you disregard selfishness as the guiding principal of life there is nothing left of Randianism. You have just eviscerated it's central premise.

 

At it's core Objectivism is outlandishly bad. As is the writing of Ayn Rand, who was a hack.

 

Bill

[Parker Martin]

If you disregard selfishness as the guiding principal of life there is nothing left of Randianism. You have just eviscerated it's central premise.

 

At it's core Objectivism is outlandishly bad. As is the writing of Ayn Rand, who was a hack.

 

Bill

 

That makes no difference. You don't have to accept "Randianism" or Objectivism. You can discard those things, but there can still be specific ideas or characterizations that one does agree with.

[mcconnellboys]

For me, the only point of Rand that's really worthwhile is that a gift is not a gift if it's not freely given. Missionary work would not be what it is if it were sanctioned and required of all of us. If we all had to serve a certain amount of time as missionaries and didn't even perhaps get to choose where/how/how long, etc., then there would be angst associated with doing the work (and so with any sort of job on earth).

 

I think we've seen similar lessons in countries that became communist, such as Russia and China. People were simply not motivated to innovate, thrive, create, when they had no real control over most of the parameters of their lives. When their ideas didn't make any sort of difference that they could measure, they had no incentive to have ideas (or to act on any they did have). When those countries opened up free markets, even on a limited basis, a few years ago, those began to fill up with merchandise and created at least a minor fervor of creativity/production.

 

I think that we could learn to all be ants, in the sense of sharing and contributing for the good of the whole, versus the individual, if we didn't have to lose free-will in the process. I just don't think that we humans are programmed to function well over the long haul in the absence of free will.

 

While Rand's ideas go to the extreme and promote complete selfishness (and I think she really bought into all that), I think that these ideas could work as exaggeration for effect. Why would people want to create, innovate, learn, work, if all that is just channeled endlessly to others and they never gain anything to show for their efforts? Why would any of us want to endlessly give if we have no choice in the giving, no control over what is given, or how, or when? What if we see the giving wasted, but cannot change anything about it to insure that what we give is really utilized?

[Bluegoat]

Rand is best as an example of a bad thing. I think her ideas are pretty much entirely opposed to Christianity.

 

I'm honestly not surprised that there might be a certain sort of Christianity that buys into objectivism, but only because I've actually spoken to such people.

[Spy Car]

For me, the only point of Rand that's really worthwhile is that a gift is not a gift if it's not freely given. Missionary work would not be what it is if it were sanctioned and required of all of us. If we all had to serve a certain amount of time as missionaries and didn't even perhaps get to choose where/how/how long, etc., then there would be angst associated with doing the work (and so with any sort of job on earth).

 

But you completely mischaracterize Rand's ideology.

 

Small enough first point, she would oppose ALL MISSIONARY WORK on multiple levels.

 

To the larger point gifts and charity according to Rand are essentially immoral acts that work against ones self-interest and (as importantly) acts that only encourage the parasites who will not do for themselves to continue to leech on the labors of the productive.

 

The only way charity can be justified is if the satisfaction one takes from the otherwise morally dubious act of supporting those with inferior lifestyles is sufficiently great that this "pleasure" or sense of self-aggrandizement far exceeds the damage to self due to loss of wealth.

 

There will still be the issue that "helping" parasites by giving them unearned gifts or charity is (in her estimation) a moral evil.

 

Doing missionary work to win people to God or Christ would be akin to enslaving their minds to irrationality. To say that Rand was anti-Christian is an understatement.

 

People may say just pick the parts you like (oh how did Rand excoriate those who suggested such while she was alive) but when you throw out her fundamental premises all that's left is a cranky misanthropy. And it means ignoring the outlandishly bad values promulgated in her works. And they are boring.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Rand is best as an example of a bad thing. I think her ideas are pretty much entirely opposed to Christianity.

 

It is the antithesis of Christianity. Everything about of Objectivism is antithetical to Christian values, values Rand attacked head-on.

 

Her "philosophy" is, however, fully endorsed by the Church of Satan for being the philosophy closest to their own.

 

I'm honestly not surprised that there might be a certain sort of Christianity that buys into objectivism, but only because I've actually spoken to such people.

 

Something that never fails to stun me.

 

Bill

Edited December 7, 2011 by Spy Car

[Beth in SW WA]

:bigear:

[heartosunshine]

The problem is Ayn Rand's books are really boring, long, and ponderous. Her characters are cardboard cut-outs, with zero depth. And the ideology is dark and immoral.

 

Waste of time and trees.

 

Bill

 

Thank you! I tried to read The Fountainhead but I quit after just a few pages (very, very rare for me; I'm obsessed with finishing books I start).

 

It is the antithesis of Christianity. Everything about of Objectivism is antithetical to Christian values, values Rand attacked head-on.

 

Her "philosophy" is, however, fully endorsed by the Church of Satan for being the philosophy closest to their own.

 

 

 

Something that never fails to stun me.

 

Bill

 

Wow! :001_huh: I'm really glad I didn't read the book.

[Spy Car]

Thank you! I tried to read The Fountainhead but I quit after just a few pages (very, very rare for me; I'm obsessed with finishing books I start).

 

 

 

Wow! :001_huh: I'm really glad I didn't read the book.

 

And you got to miss the part in The Fountainhead where the male hero rapes the female heroine (because she really wants it) :glare:

 

Ayn Rand was a sick puppy.

 

Bill

[Caroline]

NPR did a piece on Ayn Rand the week before Thanksgiving during Morning Edition.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142245517/on-capitol-hill-rands-atlas-cant-be-shrugged-off

[jenbrdsly]

And you got to miss the part in The Fountainhead where the male hero rapes the female heroine (because she really wants it) :glare:

 

Ayn Rand was a sick puppy.

 

Bill

 

 

Ayn Rand said of the Roark scene in the Fountainhead "If that was rape it was by engraved invitation."

Um...yeah. Have fun with those conversations with your DS Beth! There are some pretty graphic scenes in Atlas Shrugged too.

To take the conversation in a new direction, have you ever thought about homeschooling from an Objectivist point of view? First of all, raising children and Objectism are polar opposites to begin with. Yes, maybe you could argue that lots of people have children because they are selfish and want kids. But who selfishly wants to get up with a toddler who wet the bed at 2am? Parenting does not make any sense at all from Ayn Rand's point of view.

But ignore all that! From an Objectivist point of view, homeschoolers, private schoolers, and Afterschoolers are being selfish in a good way. They are selfishly devoting their time and energy to their own children because they want to. Homeschooling especially takes some of the parents who are most dedicated to education, and who have the most time to spend out of public schools where they might have served as classroom volunteers for the greater good. Even a family like ours, whose son is getting on the bus to drive away from our neighborhood school to go to a better school within the district, would be considered "selfish"---but in a good way.

Thoughts?

[Spy Car]

Ayn Rand said of the Roark scene in the Fountainhead "If that was rape it was by engraved invitation."

 

I know. Isn't that special? :001_huh:

 

Um...yeah. Have fun with those conversations with your DS Beth! There are some pretty graphic scenes in Atlas Shrugged too.

To take the conversation in a new direction, have you ever thought about homeschooling from an Objectivist point of view? First of all, raising children and Objectism are polar opposites to begin with. Yes, maybe you could argue that lots of people have children because they are selfish and want kids. But who selfishly wants to get up with a toddler who wet the bed at 2am? Parenting does not make any sense at all from Ayn Rand's point of view.

 

Correct. She would have viewed child rearing as largely a waste of ones life.

 

But ignore all that! From an Objectivist point of view, homeschoolers, private schoolers, and Afterschoolers are being selfish in a good way. They are selfishly devoting their time and energy to their own children because they want to. Homeschooling especially takes some of the parents who are most dedicated to education, and who have the most time to spend out of public schools where they might have served as classroom volunteers for the greater good. Even a family like ours, whose son is getting on the bus to drive away from our neighborhood school to go to a better school within the district, would be considered "selfish"---but in a good way.

Thoughts?

 

Yes, she would have taken cheer in the fact that the efforts of parents who might have volunteered to help in the classrooms were not wasted on the children of parasites!

 

What a delightful ideology.

 

Bill

[Miss Marple]

Ayn Rand said of the Roark scene in the Fountainhead "If that was rape it was by engraved invitation."

 

Um...yeah. Have fun with those conversations with your DS Beth! There are some pretty graphic scenes in Atlas Shrugged too.

 

Aristotle is said to have made this comment: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

I do not fear conversing with my 19 year old son about rape. In fact, the idea presented in The Fountainhead is often heard in the courtrooms across the world (she wanted it). How would it be difficult to show ones student the sheer ludicracy/shame/danger of such a belief? How would that be harmful?

 

If we only read that with which we agree, we have little way to interact with our world. Is there not a fine line between loving and hating a work? The amount of emotion generated by conversation about Rand's work is, IMO, an encouragement to read it to see why it causes this reaction. One can be appalled at the ideas presented and untainted by them as well. We live in a world in which many people espouse the philosophy of Rand - if we do not understand their position, we have difficulty in combating it.

 

I have enjoyed reading Bill's and others arguments against the book. You have all read the book without espousing its viewpoint. You've recognized the danger of her philosophy...that seems to me to be a positive reaction.

[SorrelZG]

Rand is best as an example of a bad thing. I think her ideas are pretty much entirely opposed to Christianity.

 

It is the antithesis of Christianity. Everything about of Objectivism is antithetical to Christian values, values Rand attacked head-on.

 

Her "philosophy" is, however, fully endorsed by the Church of Satan for being the philosophy closest to their own.

 

I'm honestly not surprised that there might be a certain sort of Christianity that buys into objectivism, but only because I've actually spoken to such people.

 

 

Something that never fails to stun me.

 

Bill

 

Slight tangent but I confess that I in part appreciate Satanists for their honesty (not precisely the word I'm looking for but drawing a blank) and am grieved far more by those essentially practicing Satanism while clinging to the "respectable" name of Christianity (or any other more easily swallowed label). Oh for a day when everyone is willing to call a spade a spade rather than trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[Spy Car]

Aristotle is said to have made this comment: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

I do not fear conversing with my 19 year old son about rape. In fact, the idea presented in The Fountainhead is often heard in the courtrooms across the world (she wanted it). How would it be difficult to show ones student the sheer ludicracy/shame/danger of such a belief? How would that be harmful?

 

If we only read that with which we agree, we have little way to interact with our world. Is there not a fine line between loving and hating a work? The amount of emotion generated by conversation about Rand's work is, IMO, an encouragement to read it to see why it causes this reaction. One can be appalled at the ideas presented and untainted by them as well. We live in a world in which many people espouse the philosophy of Rand - if we do not understand their position, we have difficulty in combating it.

 

I have enjoyed reading Bill's and others arguments against the book. You have all read the book without espousing its viewpoint. You've recognized the danger of her philosophy...that seems to me to be a positive reaction.

 

I read a lot of "dangerous" books as a kid. Including Mein Kampf and Atlas Shrugged when I was about 13 or 14. Fortunately I'm not a "suggestible" sort and never was one.

 

But I saw then how seductive the adolescent selfishness in Rand's worldview might be to selfish adolescents. I'm not sure what the world needs most is ideology that entourages teenagers to be more egoistic and less caring.

 

Rand's work appeals to the inner-fascist. That is the plain truth. When you divide the world into a tiny minority of "creatives" (the fully realized, wealthy, strong, intelligent, beautiful, and egoistic) with everyone else condemned as "parasites" then one is on their way to inner-Nazism. It is really a dark path.

 

Bill

[jenbrdsly]

Aristotle is said to have made this comment: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

I do not fear conversing with my 19 year old son about rape. In fact, the idea presented in The Fountainhead is often heard in the courtrooms across the world (she wanted it). How would it be difficult to show ones student the sheer ludicracy/shame/danger of such a belief? How would that be harmful?

 

If we only read that with which we agree, we have little way to interact with our world. Is there not a fine line between loving and hating a work? The amount of emotion generated by conversation about Rand's work is, IMO, an encouragement to read it to see why it causes this reaction. One can be appalled at the ideas presented and untainted by them as well. We live in a world in which many people espouse the philosophy of Rand - if we do not understand their position, we have difficulty in combating it.

 

I have enjoyed reading Bill's and others arguments against the book. You have all read the book without espousing its viewpoint. You've recognized the danger of her philosophy...that seems to me to be a positive reaction.

 

:iagree::iagree:

That's why I would think reading it WITH your highschooler in a Guided Reading setting is a good idea. But I also agree with Bill in that just handing it to an impressionable 13 or 14 year old is a bad idea. That's a lesson to me to remember to be careful about what books from college etc. I have stacked up in the garage to be discovered by my future teenagers. :)

[Storm Bay]

Wow, I'm glad I disliked Atlas Shrugged enough to not read The Fountainhead. I read it when I wasn't an active Christian and didn't think of myself as a Christian at all. I was 20 or 21.

 

While I understand why Ayn Rand, who had to had to be smuggled out of Soviet USSR, had such an animosity to that form of government, I have to agree with Bill on my opinions of Ayn Rand and who she was.

 

For any of you that don't know me, Bill & I disagree at least as often as we agree & have very different philosophies & beliefs in some areas.

 

That said, there are some people who love her writing and pull out what they like from it or misinterpret some of what she stood for. Ayn Rand isn't the only anti-Christian who is admired by at least some Christians. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood espoused eugenics, was racist (http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html) and anti-Christian as well.

[Miss Marple]

I'm honestly not surprised that there might be a certain sort of Christianity that buys into objectivism, but only because I've actually spoken to such people.

 

This made me think back to the Y2K fiasco. I was honestly appalled at the reaction of some of those I worship with. They were talking about stockpiling necessities and "protecting their stuff" from anyone who might try to take it. That made me so sad because I could not see that being the way of Jesus.

 

I honestly believe that we claim to believe something, but when the idea is taken to its logical conclusion, we often find ourselves pushing an "opt out" button. For example: many I know claim to find the idea of "spread the wealth" abhorrrent, but they have no problem thinking that the person in the co-op who has the most money and education should be willing to contribute the greatest amount of time and supplies (this was my reality recently) all the while quoting "to whom much is given, much is required". When the belief impacts us where we are, we often fall short of our purported belief system. That's why I love to read and discuss these works with my sons. It exposes them to situations where they might have to really examine what they believe and how it works out in their individual lives.

[LMD]

If you disregard selfishness as the guiding principal of life there is nothing left of Randianism. You have just eviscerated it's central premise.

 

At it's core Objectivism is outlandishly bad. As is the writing of Ayn Rand, who was a hack.

 

Bill

 

Bill, we're not converting to Randianism. We just enjoyed the book and were able to take something constructive from it. I realise that to Ms Rand compromise was the worst evil, but she is not my guiding light. I simply enjoyed the story, recognizing that not everyone else will, and enjoy discussing points in her philosophy that resonated.

 

Anyway I said I'd be back so here I am, but I can see how this thread has turned, so I'm out. Have fun :)

[Roadrunner]

As somebody who grew up in the USSR, I will always read Atlas Shrugged very differently. I will also make sure my kids read it when I am discussing the horrors (including massive starvation) of "great revolution".

[mcconnellboys]

I am not attempting to make a statement about Rand's ideology. I am attempting to address the OP's statements about family members who are (for instance) pro-missionary work, but who also espouse support for at least some of Rand's ideas. I well know that she (Rand) would not have had any of it, but she can't really stop people from taking what they will from her work. I'm attempting to state that some people, people I have talked to in real life, for instance, take from her work the ideas that humans should not be constantly, regularly forced to contribute in some way to individuals or groups if they do not so choose.

[Spy Car]

I am not attempting to make a statement about Rand's ideology. I am attempting to address the OP's statements about family members who are (for instance) pro-missionary work, but who also espouse support for at least some of Rand's ideas. I well know that she (Rand) would not have had any of it, but she can't really stop people from taking what they will from her work. I'm attempting to state that some people, people I have talked to in real life, for instance, take from her work the ideas that humans should not be constantly, regularly forced to contribute in some way to individuals or groups if they do not so choose.

 

No doubt you are correct. These people just have a very simplistic view of Rand's ideology. Rand herself despised people who though they could "take away" part of her "philosophy." I get a chuckle at how little people understand things sometimes. Including watching Christians who fail to see Rand's books are among the most explicitly anti-Christian works ever written.

 

Bill

[pqr]

As somebody who grew up in the USSR, I will always read Atlas Shrugged very differently. I will also make sure my kids read it when I am discussing the horrors (including massive starvation) of "great revolution".

 

 

Well put, sometimes it takes actual rather than theoretical experience to give one a perspective and understand some of what books like this say.

[momsquared]

The problem is Ayn Rand's books are really boring, long, and ponderous. Her characters are cardboard cut-outs, with zero depth. And the ideology is dark and immoral.

 

Waste of time and trees.

 

Bill

 

Thank you for pulling this out of my brain and making it so concise and eloquent.

[Spy Car]

One need not actually live under the evils of Soviet Communism to understand the crimes of Stalin and his successors. The same is true of Nazism.

 

Anti-communist ideals are not hard to grasp. What is not justifiable is replacing one evil ideology with another. Which is the case here.

 

The Communists branded Capitalists "parasites" who suck the blood of the laboring masses, and Rand just turned it around and made it the masses who suck the blood of Capitalists. Either way you have one group that is lionized as a higher form of humanity, and another who are presented as sub-humans.

 

Both ideologies are sick.

 

Bill

Edited December 8, 2011 by Spy Car

[SorrelZG]

One thought coming to mind is that if one is a Christian they could always use the Bible to shape their philosophies instead of picking at Rand and making her role over in her grave. For example, "Each one must do just as he has purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

[LMD]

As somebody who grew up in the USSR, I will always read Atlas Shrugged very differently. I will also make sure my kids read it when I am discussing the horrors (including massive starvation) of "great revolution".

 

I'd be interested to hear your take on it Roadrunner. My DH's family escaped from the USSR (parents & grandparents), and it is very interesting to see how his culture and upbringing shaped his interpretation of Rand's ideas.

 

SCGS - I would hope anyone purporting to be a Christian would do exactly that. I don't believe this precludes enjoying or discussing other viewpoints.

[jenbrdsly]

I just have to add that I love having people to argue about Ayn Rand with, becuase my DH soooo does not want to hear about it. :)

[pqr]

Remember Rand left the Soviet Union in the mid-20s. Her father had his store confiscated by the Reds, this obviously gave her a different perspective about those who produce and those who would take from them

[Spy Car]

I just have to add that I love having people to argue about Ayn Rand with, becuase my DH soooo does not want to hear about it. :)

 

Nor do I, frankly. I tried to bump the Parent-Teacher thread with a pointless mention that ours is tomorrow (which is true) just to get this thread off the main page, to no avail alas.

 

Bill

[Parker Martin]

These people just have a very simplistic view of Rand's ideology

 

Not necessarily. You're assuming that they don't know this things. My experience is that they know everything you're describing here, they just don't subscribe to her philosophy. What they enjoy about her work are specific ideas or characterizations she made about specific people and practices. (For example: Most people would probably agree that politically connected companies riding on the backs of taxpayers can be parasitic.)

 

Rand herself despised people who though they could "take away" part of her "philosophy."

 

I don't know why anyone would care what Rand thought about such people. Why should those people care?

 

I get a chuckle at how little people understand things sometimes. Including watching Christians who fail to see Rand's books are among the most explicitly anti-Christian works ever written.

 

I've yet to meet the Rand fan Christian who is not aware that Rand was rabidly anti-Christian and that a massive amount of her work reflects that.

 

I think you're being a bit of a fundamentalist here ("Accept every letter or none at all!"), which is surprising.

[Spy Car]

Rand's family lost both their well-furnished apartment and her father's pharmacy. One can understand what she may have had justifiably hard feelings about Stalinists (as if the Soviet regime's other crime were not reason enough).

 

But being a victim of inhumanity does not give one license to turn around and invent an ideology that simply replaces the actors but replicates the inhumanity. Not if you want to pretend it is a "moral" philosophy.

 

Rand just chooses a different class to cast as "parasites." This is the essential first-step of the totalitarian mind. One picks one group as the vanguard of the elite (or of the masses) and everyone else is a sub-human. Rand is as bad as the Soviets and the Nazis in this regard.

 

Bill

[SorrelZG]

LMD, I wouldn't disagree but I see two different issues coming up: reading something antagonistic to Christianity (or whatever really) for the purpose of discussion (which I'm not against entirely) and - different issue - "Christianizing" ... or generally speaking - manipulating two antagonistic philosophies in order to manufacture some contrived common ground and violating both in the process (which drives me batty at best).

Edited December 8, 2011 by SCGS
No apologies needed.

[Bluegoat]

I am not attempting to make a statement about Rand's ideology. I am attempting to address the OP's statements about family members who are (for instance) pro-missionary work, but who also espouse support for at least some of Rand's ideas. I well know that she (Rand) would not have had any of it, but she can't really stop people from taking what they will from her work. I'm attempting to state that some people, people I have talked to in real life, for instance, take from her work the ideas that humans should not be constantly, regularly forced to contribute in some way to individuals or groups if they do not so choose.

 

People have flashes of insight reading all sorts of unlikely things, and you're right, the fact that it came from an immoral book, or a chick tract, doesn't mean the insight is untrue.

 

On the other hand, it is not then true to say that they got some things right. If this idea comes out of false premises, it is really only correct as a matter of luck.

 

And there is always the danger of the idea being presented powerfully and so a person wrongly concludes it is a true insight. That is just the sort of thing one sees with Christians who fall into that objectivist approach in politics and economics.

 

I think if one wants to read non-Christian works that will have a high chance of including ideas compatible with a Christian worldview, someone like the Dali Lama would be a better bet.

[Bluegoat]

I do though think that given the rise of this type of thinking in the political sphere, being familiar with it could be worthwhile. Know they enemy and all that.

[pqr]

Rand's family lost both their well-furnished apartment and her father's pharmacy. One can understand what she may have had justifiably hard feelings about Stalinists (as if the Soviet regime's other crime were not reason enough).

 

 

Actually Rand's inheritance was stolen long before Stalin came to power. Her Father was beggared during the rule of Lenin. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that she knew was primarily during the period before the rise of Stalin.

 

One would assume if her hatred of the Soviet system stemmed from the manner in which they treated her and her family then it would be an antipathy towards the Bolshevism espoused by Lenin that formed the seed of her beliefs rather than that of Stalin.

[Spy Car]

I do though think that given the rise of this type of thinking in the political sphere, being familiar with it could be worthwhile. Know they enemy and all that.

 

I don't disagree. I would suggest those who want to understand the premises of Objectivism read the essay "The Virtue of Selfishness" (if not the whole book, of which this is the title essay). It will give one the essence of Randianism in a fashion that is short and (not at all) sweet.

 

The novels are just awfully long rows to hoe. And she was a ghastly writer whose narratives are full of purple prose and undeveloped characters.

 

Bill

Edited December 8, 2011 by Spy Car

[pqr]

Is there a good biography of Rand out there?

 

It seems that she adopted atheism while living in White controlled Crimea. I had always assumed that it came from indoctrination imposed by the Reds. The Whites supported religion as it tied them to the monarchy and gave great separation from the Reds who were destroying churches and murdering priests and nuns. The fact that she adopted this belief system in White Crimea certainly is interesting and I would love to read about the basis for said action.

[Spy Car]

Actually Rand's inheritance was stolen long before Stalin came to power. Her Father was beggared during the rule of Lenin. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that she knew was primarily during the period before the rise of Stalin.

 

One would assume if her hatred of the Soviet system stemmed from the manner in which they treated her and her family then it would be an antipathy towards the Bolshevism espoused by Lenin that formed the seed of her beliefs rather than that of Stalin.

 

You are correct. Lenin was still in power at the time her father lost his business. I regret the factual error. I don't believe it changes the point.

 

One extreme and antihuman ideology does not justify another.

 

Bill

[LMD]

LMD, I wouldn't disagree but I see two different issues coming up: reading something antagonistic to Christianity (or whatever really) for the purpose of discussion (which I'm not against entirely) and - different issue - "Christianizing" ... or generally speaking - manipulating two antagonistic philosophies in order to manufacture some contrived common ground and violating both in the process (which drives me batty at best).

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't disagree with this either - and perhaps I'm looking at this through a different lens. I have never met a person who has done this with Rand/Christianity IRL, but I can conceive that it could happen.

 

OTOH, I think there'd be a lot of manipulating/denial to do for a Christian to come away from a Rand book not realising she was very anti-Christian. I would not take anything she said theologically about Christianity to heart, as what I have read I vehemently disagree with. About humanity, work, self-respect... she's not my authority, but she is interesting!

 

And to bring in another point of view I've been considering, the epic and fatalist nature of Atlas Shrugged, combined with the regeneration/new world, one godlike man hero... one can see how conservative Christians - like myself - are comfortable with the storyline. I'm sure Rand thought of that. :001_smile:

[Spy Car]

Is there a good biography of Rand out there?

 

It seems that she adopted atheism while living in White controlled Crimea. I had always assumed that it came from indoctrination imposed by the Reds. The Whites supported religion as it tied them to the monarchy and gave great separation from the Reds who were destroying churches and murdering priests and nuns. The fact that she adopted this belief system in White Crimea certainly is interesting and I would love to read about the basis for said action.

 

I read Rand's biography "Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right" by Jennifer Burns when it came out around two years ago. It was pretty good, not great, but not bad.

 

Her hated of Communism was much more centered on her own loss of status and family wealth (egoism, by Rand's own admission, was a trait she developed very early) than it was an expression of sympathy for nuns and priests (who Rand saw a great villains, and not people deserving of her concern).

 

Bill

[jenbrdsly]

Is there a good biography of Rand out there?

 

It seems that she adopted atheism while living in White controlled Crimea. I had always assumed that it came from indoctrination imposed by the Reds. The Whites supported religion as it tied them to the monarchy and gave great separation from the Reds who were destroying churches and murdering priests and nuns. The fact that she adopted this belief system in White Crimea certainly is interesting and I would love to read about the basis for said action.

 

 

Just watch the slutty Helen Mirren movie. :001_smile:

[MBM]

I am not attempting to make a statement about Rand's ideology. I am attempting to address the OP's statements about family members who are (for instance) pro-missionary work, but who also espouse support for at least some of Rand's ideas. I well know that she (Rand) would not have had any of it, but she can't really stop people from taking what they will from her work. I'm attempting to state that some people, people I have talked to in real life, for instance, take from her work the ideas that humans should not be constantly, regularly forced to contribute in some way to individuals or groups if they do not so choose.

 

For anyone interested in exploring the pros and cons of what I bolded above, Michael Sandel (Harvard prof) discusses it in at least one class in his series Justice. The second link contains material that a viewer can read before viewing the discussion of each episode. I would highly recommend this series of online classes to anyone who wants to examine the philosophies and ideologies behind various beliefs, laws, etc.

 

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/

[Roadrunner]

One need not actually live under the evils of Soviet Communism to understand the crimes of Stalin and his successors. The same is true of Nazism.

 

Anti-communist ideals are not hard to grasp. What is not justifiable is replacing one evil ideology with another. Which is the case here.

 

The Communists branded Capitalists "parasites" who suck the blood of the laboring masses, and Rand just turned it around and made it the masses who suck the blood of Capitalists. Either way you have one group that is lionized as a higher form of humanity, and another who are presented as sub-humans.

 

Both ideologies are sick.

 

Bill

 

 

After reading the book, if anybody ever asks me what the system was like in the USSR I would point them to the description of the 20th Century Motor Vehicle company. It's by far the best parody of its economic system. I read that part several times not knowing if I should laugh or cry.

Now if you want to know what it was like politically in the thirties in the USSR, you read "1984". My grandparents went to sleep every day without knowing if they were going to wake up at home. Walls could hear what you said at home. I won't go into the horrors of torture. Too personal.

 

I just wanted to add. Frank Rearden isn't very typical of many today. He is quite special :)

Edited December 8, 2011 by Roadrunner

[LMD]

After reading the book, if anybody ever asks me what the system was like in the USSR I would point them to the description of the 20th Century Motor Vehicle company. It's by far the best parody of its economic system. I read that part several times not knowing if I should laugh or cry.

Now if you want to know what it was like politically in the thirties in the USSR, you read "1984". My grandparents went to sleep every day without knowing if they were going to wake up at home. Walls could hear what you said at home. I won't go into the horrors of torture. Too personal.

 

I just wanted to add. Frank Rearden isn't very typical of many today. He is quite special :)

 

Wow. Thanks so much for sharing Roadrunner. Those are exactly the two parts (20th C motor company and Rearden) that were so poignant to my DH. I suspected he'd relate a lot to Rearden, and after reading the book he came to me and said 'she did Rearden's character really well...'