Rand’s understanding of self-interest was incomplete because it relied solely on the self, not God, to know its interests. This view was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the origin of reason. She claimed that man has to choose to be man. The notion that man makes himself, that “man is a being of self-made soul,” is a logical contradiction (see John Robbins: Without a Prayer, Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System). Reason cannot come from unreason, consciousness from unconsciousness, nor free will from determinism. If man did not choose reason, he must have been created with it. This is precisely the teaching of the Bible, which proclaims that man was made in God’s image and spoken into being through His very Word. Man’s reason, and therefore his ability to be self-interested, comes from God. In recognizing that God created man, one can conclude that it is God who knows what is in man’s self-interest, that is, what is in man’s best interests.
Just as Rand’s philosophy fails at the beginning of life, so it fails at the end. Rand’s view of “rational self-interest” is based on the necessity of man to use reason as his tool to stay alive. But no matter how well a man uses his reason he will still die. He can never be smart enough to live forever. Death is inevitable to man. If he is to live, God must grant him life. Again, it is precisely this kind of life Christ promises in the Bible. Man’s only hope to live is to have life given to him. Just as God made man alive at his first birth, so it is God that gives him eternal life when he follows Christ.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Ayn Rand Was Not Nearly Selfish Enough
So says Norman at LibertarianChristians.Com:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Justus, you clearly have no knowledge about Objectivism and are publishing flat out lies in your blogs. Please, I urge you to read books ONLY WRITTEN BY Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. That way you will have TRUE knowledge about this philosophy. I strongly suggest that you stop writing these lies about Objectivism, if you persist, then I will wonder: what would Jesus Christ think of your character? Don't be a piece of shit Christian spreading lies. Be a good Christian, sir. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. (You have a choice now: you can spread lies, keep this falsehood of a blog, delete my entry OR you may tell your viewers that you are wrong, apologize, delete your slanderous blog, and maintain your dignity and integrity. Your next move is crucial and will tell me precisely what type of person you are.)
As for your blog (apart from the fact that it is full of lies):
In order to choose something from another, one must at least have some degree of knowledge of both items. For example, when a person has a choice of either chicken or steak, a person knows that neither is poisonous or deadly to himself, and therefore may make a sound choice as to what to eat. But a person cannot make a rational choice of what to eat if they had a choice between chicken and frumzeebles. Considering that his first motive is to eat and to maintain his life, he simply takes the chicken and not even considering what a frumzeeble is. He may ask for information about a frumzeeble in order to KNOW a little bit more before choosing. He may even ask to have a taste of a frumbeezle to see if he prefers that over chicken. But if there is no knowledge of one of the two items from which to choose, then there is no CHOICE to make.
But what if he has NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER about ANYTHING? Well, that's exactly how God created humans, with NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER except that they must obey HIM and that's it. If they don't obey, then they die. That's not a choice, that's a threat.
In the Garden of Eden, there were two trees from which Adam and Eve couldn't eat--the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL and the TREE OF LIFE (Gen 2:9). If God made humans in his image, AND God has ETERNAL LIFE himself, then why did God forego this tiny quality about Himself when making humans? Furthermore, if God Himself knew what was good and what was evil, then why did He not give this KNOWLEDGE to his best creation, which had DOMINION over all on Earth? So much for making Adam and Eve in His image.
Another point: Who created evil? If God created EVERYTHING, then he created the minds/souls/consciousness of those who are able to choose (for example, angels can choose just as God can). If God is perfect and completely and utterly good all the time, then how is it possible that evil came about in a creation that is perfect and good? Clearly, God created evil, and although He does not choose evil, his creations do--uh, so much for making creations in His own image.
Worst quality of God: He can NEVER change His mind! We can. So much for making us in His image.
God clearly made a huge mistake in creating humans (or angels) who were not ENTIRELY like Him. God could have easily made a perfect world in which everything every human, animal, and creature does and think is perfect with no evil whatsoever. So much for His perfection.
God also allowed for slaves (Exodus 21:1-11; Leviticus 25:44-46). God allows for Israelites to sell their own daughters as slaves, have slaves from nations around Israel, and even will your slaves to your own children and basically makes them slaves for life. And don't think that you will get away with supplanting the word "slave" for "hired worker." I spoke with Jewish rabbis who explained to me the difference between "ebed" "amah" and "sakyir."
Slavery is evil! You know this and everyone knows this. God allows slavery, therefore, God is evil! Is this simple enough for you?
Why would I follow a way of life that includes fear of eternal damnation, living in sin, happiness will come only after I die (if I believe certain things), and ability to own and sell slaves?
(In the words of George Carlin) Because HE loves me!
Leave the bullshit on the rodeo floor!
Dear Professor:
First of all, you clearly have no knowledge about Christianity and are publishing flat out lies in your comments. Please, I urge you to read as much as you can about Christianity. That way you will have the ability to make an INFORMED choice for yourself. I strongly suggest that you stop writing these lies about Justus, as he only linked to another author's comment. If you persist, then I will wonder: what would a casual observer think of your character?
Secondly, I object to your tone. There are any number of blogs where you can post explicative-filled rants to you heart's content. Even if I don't agree with everything I read from Justus or the others that comment here, one thing I always appreciate is that their choice of diction is at least respectful.
Also, perhaps you need to educate yourself on the meaning of slander.
Other than that, carry on.
Name a SINGLE lie I wrote in my entry, please. Remember, a lie is not entirely the same as being incorrect. A lie connotes an intentional deceit. Being incorrect is the result of one not being fully informed, but may be unintentional. I may well be incorrect, but I haven't made a statement with the intention to deceive. I only quoted the Bible--not another source that clearly is anti-Christian.
Justus has posted other past blogs in which he has chosen authors who clearly are spreading lies about Objectivism. After pointing out this error to him, I obliged him to read publications by Ayn Rand and Peikoff. He still has not. He CHOSE to go with the liars knowing full well that they are liars. Additionally, when Justus disagrees with an author, he EXPLICITLY points that out. He does not point out that he disagrees with Norman's quote.
As for the word slander, I suggest you get a dictionary. I have seven of them, and I use it before I choose to write EACH AND EVERY word to describe a crucial matter. I used it correctly, RosenRosen.
As for my tone, I can see why you would object to it.
I think the good professor clearly got overburdened. I vote for a second chance. Probably a good idea to take a deep breath before posting!
I understand your beef and partially agree. It is unfair to attack any beleif system with others who are outside of the system and writing for the purpose to disprove the system, unless these authors are accurately quoting and taking things contextually.
As far as your points about the bible. You reference ideas (not quoted) but ideas that come from a differing philosophical point of view. Which, by the way, I consider a "good" philosophy, with the noted exception of spiritual philosophy. To apply your philosophy, professor, to Christianity is wrongheaded from our point of view, even foolish...so when you say "truth" you state it as an absolute, which I agree with, as long as that truth is centered in "..The Way, The Truth, and The Life".
So, Alex, TJ, and others...I urge us all to be careful in coming down too hard on the professor, as he in my opinion, has slipped up.
I do agree that the use of expletives is uncalled for in EVERY situation. It also is in many cases, a sign of a lack of vocabulary! But, I know this to not be the case of this particular professor. In any case author of this blog made that very clear. But, I think we can forgive the good professor as He forgave us.
I would hope that in the future, Good Professor, that you refrain from using the kind of language about God as you use in such a condescending manner. It is disrespectful.
I will not go into the points you made about scripture, because you are obviously ignorant of those passages. You are text dropping things out of context and have no true understanding of the text. You have gnosis but no epignosis! (that guys is an inside narrative for the professor and I).
Now as for us, I think we can refrain from using quotes from those against Ayn Rand's philosophy as it offends our friend.
I will speak frankly about my views as all of you will, but as Rosen Rosen said....I think we should "carry on"
I am not offended! Just saddend.
Lumbee, I second that motion.
Justus, my apologies for breaking the rules. I had not read them, so I was unaware of it. But then again, decorum is warranted in these blogs and I should have known that at the very least.
Hereafter, all quotes and statements about Objectivism that do not come from well-established Objectivists may be falsehoods. I will no longer respond to any such statements, it is clearly a waste of my time.
As for Christianity, I would like to discuss the matter of slavery. I can tell you exactly what the Rabbis I've consulted have told me, and you, as Christians, can tell me if the Rabbis are correct.
Both Rabbis concluded that G-d did allow for slavery. That is, slavery meaning that one person has no rights whatsoever and in possession of another person for whom the slave is bound in servitude (ebed, male slave or manservant; amah, female slave or maidservant)--as opposed to a hired worker (sakyir). I asked about why would G-d allow such, and one of the Rabbis explained that if it is from G-d, then there is no need to question it. I left it at that. The other "liberal" Rabbi, if you will, concluded that during those times, it was quite normal to own people, therefore, socially acceptable.
Do you agree with this?
Jose,
I would like to clarify one point that may be more important that all others, and that is that I am not trying to antagonize you. If you run a search of my blog, you will see that I wrote on Ayn Rand and Objectivism prior to your arrival. The reason for this is that in many ways I would identify myself with libertarian principles, but seek to distinguish between the different strains of libertarianism, one of which is heavy on Ayn Rand and Objectivism. So, I hope you understand my intention, and I do apologize if you interpreted this in any way as a personal attack.
I agree with Lumbee's comment above, and have stated so in the past - I LIKE OBJECTIVISM, I just find it incomplete/illogical in terms of the spiritual element. That was the purpose of quoting the linked post. If Objectivism is indeed correct in totality, it is only an indictment of me and all those that are critical of Rand's claims.
As a libertarian, I love free speech and choice. You can say anything you like. I can only hope for the benefit of all who participate in this blog that a more generally agreeable tone can be chosen in the future.
Related to the matter of free speech and choice, this is my blog, which I write for fun, on my own time, so I humbly submit that I have the choice to post or link whatever I determine to be important to me. I welcome all comments, especially those that can correct me. I can only give my word that I am not setting out with the intent of personally attacking anyone.
I will refrain from now delving into theology and theodicy. I actually welcome an inspection into the matters you raised, and am not afraid to consider reasonable criticism. Perhaps there will be a more appropriate time to explore these topics, but I sense you are not as interested in engaging in such a discussion as you were in returning the posted criticism of Ayn Rand's thought with the more common criticism hurled at theistic and Christian philosophy.
Whether you continue to visit, read, and comment here, that is your choice. Don't worry about offending me, I am entertained and amused by your colorful and impassioned writing, and welcome the unique insights you can provide, but I will continue writing on a variety of topics that interest me whether or not you participate.
Jose, I will follow up with what I consider the proper Christian response to slavery. I did not see your latest comment until after I posted mine.
Thank you for the apology, and for my part, I will attempt to better frame my positions.
I think Lumbee's got it right - we're all writing with different levels of familiarity with certain subject matter - its clear that none of us are as well versed in Objectivism as the Professor, while the Professor may not be as intimately familiar with Christianity as others. I can understand why the several posts related to Objectivism and Rand might seem antagonistic to the professor, but this blog isn't set up to attack a person's philosophy, (non)beliefs, or character. If it were, I'd no longer visit.
I will acknowledge that I thought The Fountainhead was a compelling story, even if I disagree with Ms. Rand's philosophy as I understand it from that book.
Perhaps I should have been more detailed addressing the issue of slander. The thing that sticks in my craw is that neither slander nor libel are applicable in this instance. I view such allegations as very serious charges that should never be thrown around frivolously. Actionable defamation is something quite different and far more serious than mere disagreement or criticism. At most we have an instance of criticism, perhaps harsh criticism, of Ms. Rand and her philosophy. So please lets all avoid allegations of defamation when it would be more elegant to say "I don't agree with you," or "you're simply wrong." I think that's a reasonable proposal that we can all agree to. I'll do my best to comply with my proposal and be more graceful in responding in the future.
Finally, apologies accepted all around, just as I, of course, extend my own. Like all of you, I value intelligent discourse and appreciate your views, even when I (strongly) disagree.
Well done, fellows. I second the motion to carry on. I'm very interested in the slavery question.
Professor, I would like to ask for one point of clarification from you. I will first admit to having read only one Rand book (her shortest, Anthem) and none of Peikoff. However, I have stayed at multiple Holiday Inns.
As someone who has more knowledge on the subject, I would like to ask you to prove your statement that only Rand and Peikoff are acceptable sources for discussions on Objectivism. Would this statement also imply that Objectivism did not exist before Rand and Peikoff were born?
Who else did you have in mind?
Objectivism as a full philosophy DID NOT exist before Ms. Ayn Rand created it. That is not to say that ALL of her ideas are original with no background whatsoever, but there are a few or so original ideas that Ms. Rand created.
The narrowing of the list of authors of Objectivism was directed only at Justus. I wanted him to know the two main individuals who speak on behalf of this philosophy, so that he doesn't stray too far. Ms. Ayn Rand is the CREATOR and FOUNDER of Objectivism, and Dr. Leonard Peikoff is her intellectual heir. You can't get anymore legitimate than that.
For someone who wishes to learn more about Objectivism, I would say to stick to Ms. Rand's writings. For someone who wants a general overview of Objectivism, I would suggest Dr. Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (aka OPAR). For Objectivist epistemology, I would suggest Dr. Harry Binswanger/Dr. Leonard Peikoff (editors) "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."
The above is all pure philosophy.
For application of philosophy, check out http://www.aynrand.org and then place your clicker over Commentary (top of the page) and you'll see a set of icons appear, click on By Issues. The commentators are also Objectivists, including Dr. Yaron Brook, Dr. Onkar Ghate, Dr. Peter Schwartz, and others. Stick to the people published on this site.
Post a Comment