# Ayn Rand and Objectivism



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 15, 2017)

I am interested in reflecting on Ayn Rand's Objectivism from a consistently Christian perspective. It seems to me there are two key books that helpfully summarise Objectivism. "The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism" by Nathaiel Branden and "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikhoff. Branden and Peikhoff were closely associated with Rand at various stages of her life.

For those of you who have looked at Objectivism, what do you make of the above two books?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2017)

Wasn't Peikhoff one of her disciples? It's probably an accurate reading of Rand.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 16, 2017)

I understand Branden was the first to lecture on objectivism and this book is based on these lectures. Branden did have a falling out with Rand later on.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 17, 2017)

Peikoff, I think, is the executor of her estate. He is her intellectual "next in line for the throne" so to speak. 

Here's some resources: I'm not endorsing--just providing. 

http://www.seanedwards.com/christian-objectivism/

https://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/why-ayn-rand-fan-favorite-among-christian-theocrats

http://www.thechristianegoist.com/about/


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 17, 2017)

And, yes, Branden had an incredible falling out with Rand. Allegedly, they were lovers, although he was married at them time, and when he broke that aspect his relationship off with Rand, she went ballistic. 

She's interesting but shallow. Two points:
1. She is not a good philosopher--not by a stretch. Her abysmal usage of "selfishness" is enough to convict her. This is a notorious linguistic ambiguity. 

2. She's not a good novelist. She's good for short readings, but her characters are not rounded, they're wooden. She's turgid. Good grief a "speech" of more than 50 pages? I'll cut her some slack in that English wasn't her native tongue. 

Here's a link to Whittaker Chambers' excoriation of Atlas Shrugged in the National Review. Rand never forgave Buckley for publishing it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213298/big-sister-watching-you-whittaker-chambers

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 18, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> she went ballistic.



Basically a good summary of Rand. When Murray Rothbard and his wife were over at her house, she kept screaming at Murray to stomp on either a bible or a picture of Christ. Murray wasn't a Christian but he found that off putting and left.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 18, 2017)

She was a horrible philosopher. She was some kind of metaphysical "foundationalist". She took these principles as axiomatic and without need for any explanation or argument. Making her "foundation" unstable at best. Objectivism is a worthless philosophy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 18, 2017)

If Ayn Rand wrote Narnia.
http://the-toast.net/2015/08/19/ayn-rands-narnia/

http://the-toast.net/series/ayn-rand-rewrites/


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 18, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Basically a good summary of Rand. When Murray Rothbard and his wife were over at her house, she kept screaming at Murray to stomp on either a bible or a picture of Christ. Murray wasn't a Christian but he found that off putting and left.



That's funny. She did seem to go off half-cocked more than once.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 18, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> She was a horrible philosopher. She was some kind of metaphysical "foundationalist". She took these principles as axiomatic and without need for any explanation or argument. Making her "foundation" unstable at best. Objectivism is a worthless philosophy.



Agreed. It's borderline juvenile.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 18, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Agreed. It's borderline juvenile.


Yeah I had to pick up my ex-wife from the airport one time and I was reading a book about her, Rand. I already had a basic knowledge of philosophy and hated it. My poor ex-wife had to put up with me complaining all the way back to the house. Than she calmly informed me that we weren't going to talk about it anymore because she just got home and two hours was enough.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 18, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> Yeah I had to pick up my ex-wife from the airport one time and I was reading a book about her, Rand. I already had a basic knowledge of philosophy and hated it. My poor ex-wife had to put up with me complaining all the way back to the house. Than she calmly informed me that we weren't going to talk about it anymore because she just got home and two hours was enough.



That's a funny story. LOL


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 19, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Here's some resources: I'm not endorsing--just providing.


Thank you - very insightful. Interesting that some objectivists call themseves Christian objectivists.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 19, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> She is not a good philosopher--not by a stretch.





jwright82 said:


> She was a horrible philosopher. She was some kind of metaphysical "foundationalist". She took these principles as axiomatic and without need for any explanation or argument.





Clark-Tillian said:


> Agreed. It's borderline juvenile.


Actually I find her, in one sense, refreshing to the relativistic postmodern stuff that passes for philosophy today.

But in any case, is not all non Christian philosophy terrible and hopeless? In Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" he includes a excerpt from Van Til on the absolute failure of all non Christian philosophy. True, Rand did not have a proper foundation for her metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. But neither did Aristotle, Plato, Hume, Kant etc etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 19, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> But in any case, is not all non Christian philosophy terrible and hopeless? In Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" he includes a excerpt from Van Til on the absolute failure of all non Christian philosophy. True, Rand did not have a proper foundation for her metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. But neither did Aristotle, Plato, Hume, Kant etc etc.



There are different degrees of hopeless. Plato and Aristotle are actually useful. Ludwig von Mises, too. Rand, though, actively hated Christ.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 19, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There are different degrees of hopeless. Plato and Aristotle are actually useful. Ludwig von Mises, too. Rand, though, actively hated Christ.



Indeed. Aristotle basically codified the laws of logic which, when used properly, are a great aid to clarity of thought. And, as far as they are true, they must spring from the mind of God. Will knowing logic save you? No. But they're a wonderful tool for communicating lucidly. I never got the sense that Rand actually read, studied, understood much philosophy at all. Analytic Philosophy is a great aid in dismantling her. Again, her ambiguous, abysmal, irrational use of the term "selfishness" is simultaneously infuriating and amusing. And she made this concept the basis of her ethics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 19, 2017)

Her novels, on one level, remind me of Paganini's Caprices--best enjoyed in small doses. The difference between Nicolo and Ayn is that he is an acknowledged musical genius--if you can play his musician on your fiddle, then very little in the field will be beyond your grasp. My son wrote better fiction than Rand at age 10.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 19, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Actually I find her, in one sense, refreshing to the relativistic postmodern stuff that passes for philosophy today.
> 
> But in any case, is not all non Christian philosophy terrible and hopeless? In Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" he includes a excerpt from Van Til on the absolute failure of all non Christian philosophy. True, Rand did not have a proper foundation for her metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. But neither did Aristotle, Plato, Hume, Kant etc etc.



Just for conversation--who are some representative samples of _the relativistic postmodern stuff that passes for philosophy today? _Just curious.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 19, 2017)

My country has just elected one of the most Socialist governments in our Parliamentary history. A "taste" of Ayn Rand's politics (but NOT morals) might be good for our parliament!


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 19, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thank you - very insightful. Interesting that some objectivists call themseves Christian objectivists.



Actually, from what I've read on those sites, it's rather that some Christians hold to the philosophy of Objectivism and are attempted to syncretize it with the faith. The one chap (I think the last one I listed) makes a commendable go of it. He's got an article/blog post from a year or so ago, that dismantles much of the "social justice" buffoonery that is endemic today. In that post he seems to be engaged in an analytic philosophy exercise; he does a good job discussing the terms used in that SJW movement, and then proves (in my view) that the entire concept enfeebles our ability to present the gospel.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 19, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> That's a funny story. LOL


Thank you.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 20, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Just for conversation--who are some representative samples of _the relativistic postmodern stuff that passes for philosophy today? _Just curious.


Actually, it seems to me and others (Dr. William Edgar and Dr. K Scott Oliphint for instance) that Postmodernism has been on its way out for quite some time. But ideas have a bad time dying quickly. For what its worth.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 20, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> Thank you.



You're most welcome .


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 20, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> Actually, it seems to me and others (Dr. William Edgar and Dr. K Scott Oliphint for instance) that Postmodernism has been on its way out for quite some time. But ideas have a bad time dying quickly. For what its worth.



Yes, the general culture always lags behind the academy. Most folks on the street aren't even nominally aware that they have a relativistic worldview.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 20, 2017)

Here's a Trinity Foundation link. Robbins also has a print book that devastates Rand. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=57

Gordon H. Clark (posthumously) approves of this discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Oct 26, 2017)

A podcast I listen to just had an episode on Ayn Rand, I thought it was worth listening to. It looks at why she had success and some of the good things she said, but then goes into her shortcomings as well. I thought it insightful.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/10/jennifer_burns.html


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 26, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Basically a good summary of Rand. When Murray Rothbard and his wife were over at her house, she kept screaming at Murray to stomp on either a bible or a picture of Christ. Murray wasn't a Christian but he found that off putting and left.


Rothbard was from a Jewish background. I'm sure he found the request to be bizarre to say the least. 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## ZackF (Oct 26, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Rothbard was from a Jewish background. I'm sure he found the request to be bizarre to say the least.
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk



The story also goes that Rand told Rothbard that he needed to divorce his Catholic wife. That’s what ended the friendship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 26, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Rothbard was from a Jewish background.


So was Rand.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 26, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Just for conversation--who are some representative samples of _the relativistic postmodern stuff that passes for philosophy today? _Just curious.


When I made my comment, I had in mind a comment in Jennifer Burns biography of Rand where she said that some students in the 1960's found Rand's philosophy a breath of fresh air compared to the relativistic teaching in their Universities.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 26, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Just for conversation--who are some representative samples of _the relativistic postmodern stuff that passes for philosophy today? _Just curious.



Ask any pomo and they will deny that they believe in a vicious relativism (no absolutes). Only college sophomores spout that nonsense. What they are more likely to say is that all truth-claims are conditioned by one's environment, etc. To perhaps it close to home in the PCA--truth claims are conditioned by the conservative's guilt in white sins 100 years ago.

As for examples:
John Caputo.
Ralschke, Next Reformation, GloboChrist.
Some of James KA Smith, though his earlier writings are good.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 26, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What they are more likely to say is that all truth-claims are conditioned by one's environment, etc.



You would think that would get conservatives off the hook.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 26, 2017)

ZackF said:


> You would think that would get conservatives off the hook.



At one time in my life I was a hyper-right wing communitarian. I took all of the arguments from guys like Alasdair MacIntyre and came to right-wing conclusions. I found out that liberals get nervous when you use postmodern arguments to deconstruct the government.


----------



## Haeralis (Nov 15, 2017)

I don't believe that it has been pointed out that Rand was a disciple of none other than Friedrich Nietzsche, and this shows in her philosophy of objectivism. Like Nietzsche, Rand had nothing but contempt for the Christian tradition and saw it as a roadblock to the new man who should move beyond good and evil. 

Objectivism was nothing but a synthesis of this Nietzscheanism with Aristotle's idea that existence is identical with itself. I'm not terribly sure that any reconciliation between Randian objectivism and Christianity would be convincing.


----------

