DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ayn Rand Novels: The Fountainhead Essay Contest

Quote:

---

I could right a thesis on any or all of the topics.

---

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

---

If I wasn't already some 30 years or so removed from eligibility. I could right a thesis on any or all of the topics. I could use the money too!

---

Thank God for Spell Check

KING

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If I wasn't already some 30 years or so removed from eligibility. I could right a thesis on any or all of the topics. I could use the money too!

---

Thank God for Spell Check

KING

---

Yeah! I spelled it right.

Quote:

---

Glad I could old help!

---

Quote:

---

How appropriate. An essay contest for juveniles about an author with a juvenile mind.

---

A comment from a prepubescent mind?

Quote:

---

Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has pre-empted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach. 'Exaltation' is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. 'Worship' means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. 'Reverence' means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one's knees. 'Sacred' means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.

But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.

It is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountain-head as man-worship. (Introduction, pg. 9)

---

Quote:

---

Since I have a prepubescent mind, I guess that means I'm eligible for this contest. So, here's my essay intro.

Title: The Impossibility of the Christian Devotee of Ayn Rand's Philosophy

How is it that Ayn Rand has so many Christian admirers? They do not simply enjoy her novels or use them as a distraction from life. No, many of them, like Dawg Talk Message Board poster anarchy2day, adopt Rand's philosophy, in part or in whole, as their own personal worldview. The irony in this is that Rand's philosophy is atheistic and anti-Christian, which leaves anarchy2day two options. Either he accepts Rand's philosophy in total, or he accepts it in part. If he accepts it in total, he is betraying his Christian faith. If he accepts it in part, ignoring the atheism that is anathema to his religious beliefs, he is perverting a philosophy that cannot be separated from atheism. To accept Rand's philosophy is to accept atheism, and half measures in this regard would only earn one Rand's scorn. How tragic it is to know that the biggest Ayn Rand fanboy on DT would be summarily dismissed by the "great" philosopher herself.

So, what are Rand's thoughts on religion? Here is a passage from my cherished copy of the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead:

Quote:

---

Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has pre-empted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach. 'Exaltation' is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. 'Worship' means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. 'Reverence' means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one's knees. 'Sacred' means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.

But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.

It is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountain-head as man-worship. (Introduction, pg. 9)

---

And so, all of the religious attitudes are confusions of natural emotions and feelings that are directed at the wrong object. Man himself is the true object of reverence and worship, and this is the foundation of Randian philosophy. It is impossible to accept any consequence derived from this philosophy and not accept the "man-worship" that lies at its core. Therefore, Christian devotees of the Randian philosophy, like anarchy2day, are profoundly confused individuals. And in the opinion of Rand herself, if she were alive today to pronounce judgement, anarchy2day and others like him would be considered contemptable weaklings who cannot free themselves from the disgusting, servile debasement that is Christian faith.

---

Rand herself was atheistic. Her philosophy is just that - philosophy. It isn't theology and is very much separable from her atheistic views.

I would remind Mantis that Plato and Aristotle were also atheists. It doesn't mean that their philosophies aren't usable by anyone of any theology.

Marx (and Engels) were some more atheists. Doesn't stop people with a theological viewpoint to strive to implement their philosophy.

Thanks for playing that little ruse though. It was fun while it lasted.

What you don't understand is that Rand's philosophy, in itself, isn't atheistic. If anything, it could be considered more humanist than anything else.

If I could speak to Rand, I wouldn't mind telling her exactly where I think her philosophy is wrong. It probably would not surprise you that I think her atheism is misplaced, but it's not her atheism that I find her most objectionable trait. It's her open hostility towards religion, Christian or otherwise, which is her worst flaw. But I won't dwell on it so much. I've stated it here and elsewhere many times before.

Thank you for the quotation from The Fountainhead. As with Rand herself, she gives her main characters (namely Howard Roark, from the aforementioned, The Fountainhead and John Galt from Atlas Shrugged) the same atheistic and hostility towards religion that Rand had, although, Roark had it to a lesser degree. His atheism was abundant but he wasn't openly harsh towards religion.

I'm sure that she would find me a contemptible fool or some other such. *shrug* I would take it as a bonus if she thought of me whatsoever. I would tell her so and that her ability to show contempt for others puts a hole in her "man is God" view of things. I would also point out that those who oppose her philosophical men in her novels are also men. Should they not also be central to her beliefs? In fact, one might suggest that those opposing John Galt (and the other strikers) in Atlas Shrugged were carrying out her beliefs as much as Galt was, perhaps more.

There is a good deal that can be taken from Rand's philosophy, Objectivism (as she termed it). I dare say, a good deal more than can be taken from Marx. Namely, relying upon your own talents and being your own person - an individual. Also, striving to be the best you can and do your best at applying them. The sanctity of the individual is one of the overriding messages of her philosophy, hence, the "man-worship". The worship of man and his individual achievements. It sounds a great deal like pride (which is one of the seven deadly sins) but I'm not sure it qualifies in this sense. For example, the characters which represent the strikers in the novel Atlas Shrugged, don't practice it with the intent to show-off. In fact, they keep their accomplishments from the world at large by not sharing their achievements and not seeking any glory.

But, I digress. I've gone on much too long.

I'll end with just this little nugget. You can divorce Rand's philosophy from her religious (or anti-religious) fervor. In truth, you can even divorce parts of her philosophy from the overall philosophy without any difficulty.

Quote:

---

I would just paraphrase as many Rush songs as possible. Neil Peart was heavily influenced by her writing.

---

Quote:

---

Rand herself was atheistic. Her philosophy is just that - philosophy. It isn't theology and is very much separable from her atheistic views.

---

Quote:

---

I would remind Mantis that Plato and Aristotle were also atheists. It doesn't mean that their philosophies aren't usable by anyone of any theology.

---

Quote:

---

Thanks for playing that little ruse though. It was fun while it lasted.

---

Quote:

---

What you don't understand is that Rand's philosophy, in itself, isn't atheistic. If anything, it could be considered more humanist than anything else.

---

Quote:

---

If I could speak to Rand, I wouldn't mind telling her exactly where I think her philosophy is wrong. It probably would not surprise you that I think her atheism is misplaced, but it's not her atheism that I find her most objectionable trait. It's her open hostility towards religion, Christian or otherwise, which is her worst flaw. But I won't dwell on it so much. I've stated it here and elsewhere many times before.

---

Quote:

---

There is a good deal that can be taken from Rand's philosophy, Objectivism (as she termed it). I dare say, a good deal more than can be taken from Marx. Namely, relying upon your own talents and being your own person - an individual. Also, striving to be the best you can and do your best at applying them. The sanctity of the individual is one of the overriding messages of her philosophy, hence, the "man-worship". The worship of man and his individual achievements. It sounds a great deal like pride (which is one of the seven deadly sins) but I'm not sure it qualifies in this sense. For example, the characters which represent the strikers in the novel Atlas Shrugged, don't practice it with the intent to show-off. In fact, they keep their accomplishments from the world at large by not sharing their achievements and not seeking any glory.

---

Quote:

---

You can divorce Rand's philosophy from her religious (or anti-religious) fervor. In truth, you can even divorce parts of her philosophy from the overall philosophy without any difficulty.

---

Quote:

---

I can tell we are probably never going to agree on this, but let's see if we can at least come to some understanding. I know you like everything Rand has to say about individualism. But individualism is not a Randian idea. You can find this in the work of any number of philosophers, each with their own permutations on what it means to be an individual over and above the collective. Not all of them are atheists. What I don't understand about Christian fans of Rand is why they don't pick a philosophy more suitable to their personal beliefs. If your philosopher of choice was Kierkegaard, I wouldn't have a problem with anything you write on this topic, at least not insofar as your influences are concerned.

---

Quote:

---

True enough, but be careful with this analogy. Plato's ideal society doesn't necessarily exclude Christians. Rand, on the other hand, excludes Christians from full humanity. I'd say there's a big difference here, wouldn't you?

---

Quote:

---

Not over yet. I'm interested to see what you think about what I've written above.

---

Well, then read it what I think of it.

Quote:

---

Okay, I was understanding you up until this. I don't know what you mean by "in itself," but I don't know how you can claim that Rand's philosophy is not inherently atheistic.

---

Quote:

---

Roark is Rand's ideal human. Is he a theist? Are any of the "good guys" in Atlas Shrugged theists? These are the only two novels of hers I've read, but I'm willing to bet none of her ideal humans are theists. Is that a coincidence?

---

Quote:

---

Calling her philosophy "humanist" as a way to deflect the charge that it is atheistic doesn't make sense. Humanism is also atheism.

---

Quote:

---

It is the position that the human being is the center of the cosmos, and consequences for humanity should be the goal of all human action. Now, I know many Christians call themselves humanists, but these people are confused, not only about the real meaning of humanism, but about their theology as well.

---

Quote:

---

Rand's philosophy is most definitely humanist--"man-worship" to be more precise. Adding a transcendent being like the Christian God to that equation doesn't work. Once you have God, you no longer have humanism, and you no longer have Rand's ideal human. The ideal human is the whole point of her philosophy. Despite her protestations, she is a Nietzschean to her core. Randian philosophy has everything to do with the human subject, and atheism is a necessary component.

---

Humanism is not inherently exclusive of religion. And despite Rand's heavy dose of atheism (see Roark & Galt) in her heroic characters, she also infuses it into her antagonists as well (see Toohey in The Fountainhead & Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged).

One of the main institutions mentioned in the book is the Patrick Henry University (of Cleveland ). Ironically, Patrick Henry was not an atheist. He was a devout Christian and along with the Carroll's was instrumental in the 'freedom OF religion' in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

Quote:

---

Sure, you can screen out the atheism and still claim to be following Rand's philosophy, but once you do that, you could just as easily be following some other philosophy that deals with individualism and the ideal human. At the very least, the choice of philosophy could be more appropriate.

---

Quote:

---

I don't have anything to add here since my comments above cover this as well, but I wanted to let you know I've read this and understand you are not a true Randian. But that's kind of the whole point of everything I'm saying.

---

Quote:

---

I give credit where credit is due. This is a good analysis, and I agree with much of what you say here. I don't know your full thoughts on Marx, but I wouldn't dismiss him perfunctorily. Marx's early works deal a lot with what it means to be a human being. There are places in Marx's early writings that would fit right in with Rand's own views. The later writings of Marx abandoned humanistic philosophy in favor of socioeconomic theory, which is what most people know him for. So, unless we are comparing Rand to early Marx, there isn't really much of a comparison to be made. Rand is primarily concerned with the human subject and later Marx is exclusively concerned with the objective world.

---

Quote:

---

How interesting. Isn't this the same argument I was making about Whitaker Chamber's review of Atlas Shrugged? You dismissed his review because of his former communist beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't even a communist anymore, and you still dismissed him, failing to "divorce" his beliefs from his review. So, if you are willing to extend this courtesy to Rand, divorcing her personal beliefs from the philosophy in her novels, are you now willing to do the same for Chambers? This is a test of your intellectual honesty. I think I've been very fair with you in my response. Now, it's your turn.

---

Quote:

---

There are no Christians who believe Ayn's philosophy to be theirs, because Ayn's philosophy cuts through Christianity. You cannot live for yourself when you live for God.

However, Republicans love Ayn Rand because it gives them an excuse -- no -- a reason to be as selfish as possible no matter what the cost. That's why many CEO's dusted off Atlas Shrugged to read after Enron's fiasco.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There are no Christians who believe Ayn's philosophy to be theirs, because Ayn's philosophy cuts through Christianity. You cannot live for yourself when you live for God.

However, Republicans love Ayn Rand because it gives them an excuse -- no -- a reason to be as selfish as possible no matter what the cost. That's why many CEO's dusted off Atlas Shrugged to read after Enron's fiasco.

---

It seems that you don't know the difference between philosophy and theology either.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There are no Christians who believe Ayn's philosophy to be theirs, because Ayn's philosophy cuts through Christianity. You cannot live for yourself when you live for God.

However, Republicans love Ayn Rand because it gives them an excuse -- no -- a reason to be as selfish as possible no matter what the cost. That's why many CEO's dusted off Atlas Shrugged to read after Enron's fiasco.

---

It seems that you don't know the difference between philosophy and theology either.

---

Saying this does not prove me wrong.

---

Quote:

---

How interesting. Isn't this the same argument I was making about Whitaker Chamber's review of Atlas Shrugged? You dismissed his review because of his former communist beliefs. He wasn't even a communist anymore, and you still dismissed him, failing to "divorce" his beliefs from his review. So, if you are willing to extend this courtesy to Rand, divorcing her personal beliefs from the philosophy in her novels, are you now willing to do the same for Chambers?

---

Quote:

---

*** You are ignoring this user ***

---

My enjoyment in the threads has improved dramatically when I see these peppered throughout.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

*** You are ignoring this user ***

---

My enjoyment in the threads has improved dramatically when I see these peppered throughout.

---

Quote:

---

I was honored to be placed on anarchy's ignore list on the old board.

---

I was going to give you another shot, but welcome to it again. Now, I'll have to look to see who I'm ignoring.

Quote:

---

If you like someone, you minimize or ignore the things that don't agree with you.

If you don't like them, those things become instant qualification for dimissal.

---

Quote:

---

I do like Rand's views on individualism, you are correct there. As for the rest, I'm not concerned whether you have a problem with anything I write on this or any other subject.

---

Quote:

---

Rand doesn't exclude anyone.

---

Quote:

---

It is philosophy. It isn't theological and so religious aspects don't apply except indirectly and tangentially.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, John Galt is Rand's ideal man.

---

Quote:

---

Humanism isn't inherently atheist. In fact, most humanist philosophies have a religious foundation.

---

Quote:

---

Rand is primarily concerned with the individual and Marx is primarily concerned with the collective.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not willing to divorce his philosophical views (maybe they changed) from him. I could accept that maybe his theological views changed (he went from being an atheist to a Christian) but held onto his Marxist philosophy, a la Jim Jones. No, I won't give Whitaker Chambers any slack on that side of the ledger. Theology does not equal philosophy. That would be like calling the Founding Fathers 'atheists' because they were influenced by the philosophies of Aristotle, John Locke, and others.

---

What are you talking about? Did you get tired at the end of your response? This is the most incoherent paragraph I've ever read from you, and that's saying something. I'm going to give you the chance to rewrite this and make a cogent argument. Maybe you should try refocusing on the question. If Rand's personal beliefs can be divorced from what she writes in her novels, why can't Chambers' personal beliefs be divorced from what he writes in his review? Give it another shot.

Quote:

---

Are you concerned about having well informed opinions? Are you concerned about consistency in your beliefs? If so, you should be concerned about what I have a problem with.

---

Quote:

---

Might be time to re-read your copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

---

Quote:

---

Atheism is a philosophical principle.

---

Quote:

---

Almost every philosopher today is a materialist. That means nothing exists but the material world. Therefore, God does not exist and atheism is true. I don't know where you got this ridiculous notion that atheism has nothing to do with philosophy, but you should drop that one my friend. You sound silly.

---

Blah, blah, blah.

Quote:

---

Actually, they both are. Read her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition. Atlas Shrugged was Rand's attempt to make her philosophical position clear for those who missed it the first time around, and Galt was Roark 2.0.

---

Quote:

---

Do go on. You've made the claim, now back it up. Perhaps you could give a specific example of one such humanist philosophy?

---

Quote:

---

Spoken like a man who has never read Marx. And don't tell me you've read the Communist Manifesto because I'll just laugh at you. Read Capital Volume 1 and then I'll take your views on Marx seriously.

---

Quote:

---

What are you talking about? Did you get tired at the end of your response? This is the most incoherent paragraph I've ever read from you, and that's saying something. I'm going to give you the chance to rewrite this and make a cogent argument. Maybe you should try refocusing on the question. If Rand's personal beliefs can be divorced from what she writes in her novels, why can't Chambers' personal beliefs be divorced from what he writes in his review? Give it another shot.

---

Quote:

---

Atheism is a theological principle.

---

Quote:

---

*** You are ignoring this user ***

---

Well, you had asked for it.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

*** You are ignoring this user ***

---

Well, you had asked for it.

---

Oh well. Maybe someone else will pass on my question.

Quote:

---

[on atheism not being a philosophical principle]

What research or whatever have you read that backs up this idea?

Wouldn't the only connection with theology be it's denial in the belief in God's existence.

Does that really qualify as a theological principle?

It's a belief system in a way, but please explain the connection to theology.

---

Quote:

---

I'll have to respond to you later. Busy day. But to answer one of your questions, yes, I have read Wealth of Nations. Enjoyed it very much. I would encourage you to read Marx. It is well worth the time. You don't have to be a Marxist to read Marx.

---

Quote:

---

Rockdogg asked you a good question. Here it is:

Quote:

---

[on atheism not being a philosophical principle]

What research or whatever have you read that backs up this idea?

Wouldn't the only connection with theology be it's denial in the belief in God's existence.

---

No, atheism is a religious belief - or an anti-religious belief. It has everything to do with theology and nothing to do with philosophy. It is absolutely a theological viewpoint.