PAUL RYAN'S GURU AYN RAND LAYS DOWN THE LAW ON JESUS CHRIST

[kpete]

PAUL RYAN'S GURU AYN RAND LAYS DOWN THE LAW ON JESUS CHRIST

Letter from Ayn Rand to Sylvia Austin, July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2012/08/letter-from-ayn-rand.html

[Turbineguy]

1. That woman

was filled with shit.

[Lint Head]

2. Ayn Rand was a phony intellectual and a sociopath.

Narcissistic legend in her own mind.

[patrice]

3. I agree with Ayn Rand that this error is the core of "Christian" dysfunction.

I probably disagree with Rand on however she perceives the phenomenon referred to as "soul", especially as that may be posed as a false dichotomy.

Her perception of the error that destroys Christianity is weighted in favor of the individual's soul, individuation.

Others make mistakes which destroy Christianity that are weighted in favor of others' souls, collectivation, if I may.

My personal preference is for balanced dynamic tension between the two aspects of the same experiential domain.

If there is something that could be called soul, what rational reason would we have to assume that it is a zero-sum commodity, completely subject to objectification and dichotomization (again, if I may)?

[Zalatix]

4. Let me see if I interpret Ayn Rand's logic correctly...

"Every man's soul is individual, therefore every man is an island unto himself and others do not matter." Am I close? If so, her logic needs fixing.

Allow me to explain where her "logic" fails...

Humans are at war with their animal nature - that's the moral law of gravity, easily demonstrated. The contradiction is that we try rise above the level of predatory animals when in fact we evolved from lower predatory animals. The consequences of "smoothing out" that contradiction by giving in, is utterly disastrous. It will not end in the society Ayn Rand thinks it will - in fact, it won't end in a society at all.

Without altruism, a society cannot even hope to function. Without altruism humans will prey on each other until, quite literally, one is left standing.

THAT is the ultimate and inescapable conclusion of Ayn Rand's logic.

[patrice]

5. Agree. There's a huge leap from Objectivism to Utopia that doesn't even consider the logical

probability that even under their absolute BEST CASE scenario, you end up with, as you observe, Zalatix, "one is left standing" (though we might extend that to one "specie" of soul) . . . one, and ergo sterile, declining ember of a certain type of soul, dying for the lack of the motivating oxygen of truth. IOW, what Christians would refer to as hell.