Comments on: Is Ayn Rand’s philosophy compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:20:36 +0000

“The problem with Rand’s philosophy as I see it is that she leaves no room whatsoever for serving your fellow man. She sees no nobility in voluntary service or voluntary giving (people don’t appreciate it, she seems to say).”

More than not seeing any nobility in it, she expressly called voluntary service “immoral.”

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:16:33 +0000

“But what is fascinating for this religious Christian is that “Atlas Shrugged” is literally filled with Christ symbols and various other religious references. John Galt, her greatest hero, is nothing but a Christ symbol — he allows himself to be tortured by Pharisiacal statists for the greater good of humanity. The people around him love him just as Christ’s followers loved the Savior. His followers gather to a pure capitalistic Zion while the rest of the statist world falls to pieces (Isaiah, anyone?). And check out this scene.”

The reason for that is that John Galt was written specifically as an antichrist figure. All of her Christian imagery is parody. %100 of it.

In short, Jesus came to the world to accept mankind’s sin in order to save mankind. John Galt came to the world where he refused to accept “unearned guilt” in order to punish and destroy mankind. Or at least the vast majority of it, who she regarded as “mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for the benefit of the worthy.”

By: » ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the movie is coming out. What do Mormons think of Objectivism? The Millennial Star

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:47:49 +0000

[...] As most lovers of free-market economics know by now, “Atlas Shrugged,” the movie is coming out this week. Just two years ago, I wrote this piece on Rand’s philosophy, called Objectivism. [...]

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:04:04 +0000

Marylee, welcome to the blogging world. In “Atlas Shrugged,” there are a lot of people who Rand calls “looters” who figure out ways to live off of the productive capacity of others. For example, an industrialist will create a new product and the looters will figure out ways to appropriate it for themselves. In our modern day, you could think about John Murtha, who created an airport with taxpayer money all for himself:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/murtha.airport/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

(Just to be clear, both Republicans and Dems have done this — I’m just using one of the most egregious examples).

So, from Rand’s perspective, “living for the sake of another” means giving your productive capacity and goods and cash to another person who doesn’t work as hard as you do. Rand feels that working for the sake of another makes you nothing less than a slave. Rand feels very strongly that the things you produce should belong to YOU and should not be taken away by the government or by other people, and she feels that one of the primary reasons for America’s success has been that people are encouraged to produce new things and new companies for their own benefit (think Bill Gates and Microsoft as an example).

The problem with Rand’s philosophy as I see it is that she leaves no room whatsoever for serving your fellow man. She sees no nobility in voluntary service or voluntary giving (people don’t appreciate it, she seems to say).

By: JA Benson

JA Benson — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:50:48 +0000

This is my first effort to sign up for a blog. I don’t understand what I’m doing at all, but enjoy listening to my friend JABenson. When I read a little of the Ayn Rand discussion, I wondered what it means to “live for the sake of another”? Refusing to do so could mean so many different things to different people that it’s hard to have a discussion. Does Ayn Rand make it perfectly clear what she means? Marylee Mitcham

Hi Marylee I put your comment over here.

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:55:46 +0000

Ammon, my point is that Rand, intentionally or not (most likely intentionally) is appealing to that thing about human nature that responds to human sacrifice. It is exactly the reason that Steven Spielberg used so many intentional or non-intentional references to the Savior in his movie “ET.” It is the reason that Ernest Hemingway wrote “Old Man and the Sea” the way he did (the old man carries the mast like a cross at the end, etc). Rand and Spielberg and Hemingway are all using devices that will respond to emotional “hot buttons” within us. Sacrificing yourself for the greater good is the biggest hot button of all.

So, Galt is definitely a Christ symbol. If you see him as an anti-hero, as many do (and I agree with some of your points), that does not detract from Rand’s usage of the Christ symbol means of getting her point across. That was my point.

Ironically, during Galt’s three-hour speech he spends a lot of time saying that sacrifice for others is meaningless. Yet he does it himself a few days later.

By: Ammon C

Ammon C — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:36:02 +0000

“John Galt, her greatest hero, is nothing but a Christ symbol — he allows himself to be tortured by Pharisiacal statists for the greater good of humanity.”

John Galt is not a symbol of Christ but a symbol of the Antichirst. It was the Son of the Morning who first wanted to save the world for his glory, greed and benefit. Likewise, Galt would slap the fact of the man who dared accused him of sacrificing anything for the “good of humanity.” Galt preached the exchange of value for value, nothing more nothing less. Remember, the oath to enter Rand’s heaven is “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.”

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:26:34 +0000

john f,
Why do you seek the dead among the living?

By: john f.

john f. — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:07:18 +0000

No idea, Steve FSF.

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:57:11 +0000

john f,
Hope you are well. It’s Irish week here in Houston, and I was thinking I should offer you a Guinness. But let’s make it a Jameson double. Then we can really talk.

On a side note, what would Rand say about the modern European paradox of people who act like they invented sex but are clueless about making babies?