Comments on: Random links

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:18:31 +0000

Joel, I’d have to say I agree with you entirely then. I have known a few people who consider themselves Objectivist deists, but none who consider themselves Objectivist Christians–and I wouldn’t believe them if I saw them.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:18:09 +0000

Jason,
Perhaps I should just note that objectivist philosophy and Christianity are totally incompatible, at least as I understand Christianity. To believe as Rand did pretty much precludes any idea that God’s grace is an intervening force in our lives. Perhaps one could be a Randian and believe that God created us and then left us to our own devices.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:54:09 +0000

Joel, if we accept that definition of atheism, then atheism is precisely equal to egoism, which it is not. One might easily be a nihilist atheist, for instance, or a socialist atheist who values society above the individual. Rand was both an atheist and an egoist, but the two are not the same.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:15:50 +0000

Jason,
I’ve read a lot of Rand’s books. “Self” and one’s own abilities and achievements seem to be the central themes. That’s pretty much the definition of atheism — that is, the belief that there isn’t a power or purpose greater than self or as the self determines.

By: Moochie

Moochie — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:58 +0000

Atlas Shrugged is an interesting read. Frankly, it’s not very well written at all &, while the mystery is intriguing for a couple 100 pages, Rand’s writing ability (I can’t bring myself to call it *style* because she’s totally lacking in that area) simply can’t sustain it for nearly 1100 & the book quickly becomes tedious. When I read it, I though it would have made a dynamite 300 page science fiction novel about a sort of alternate US history, especially considering Hank’s blue steel. There’s a certian romance about a modern society based primarily around trains. But even in 1957 that idea was dated. And her whole Objectivist philosophy – with heroic man’s happiness as the moral purpose of his life, productive achievement as his noblest activity, & reason his only absolute (to paraphrase Rand) – I find hollow, selfish, & exclusive. Rand, herself, seems not to commit to it in AS. Dagny Taggart is, at first blush, quite a strong, self-confident woman but by the end of the book, she seems more than willing to allow men, especially John Gualt, to take over everything she’s built. So is Dagny’s life work her noblest achievement if she’s so willing to give it up for . . . another person? What happened to “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine”? Rubbish.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:33:38 +0000

“At its heart, Rand’s objectivist philosophy is rooted in atheism.”
This is something of a misconception. Atheism isn’t a primary in Rand’s philosophy; it is a consequence that she held to follow from the supremacy of reason over faith or mysticism.
Otherwise, though, I completely agree. Few philosophers were quite so hierarchical as Rand; few integrated their ideas across so many different areas of life, and few insisted so strongly that their superstructure of politics, culture, and art must rest upon a base consisting of their ethics and epistemology.
Often people admire Rand’s political or social ideas while disagreeing with the concepts that Rand saw as their foundations. These foundations included reason, radical individualism, and egoism rather than altruism. Besides her atheism, any one of these could give pause to Christians interested in Rand.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:38:17 +0000

At its heart, Rand’s objectivist philosophy is rooted in atheism. So, I always find it a little odd that so many Christians lift her up as an example for human responsibility. I don’t think it so strange when she is touted by non-believing libertarians.