If Ayn Rand were a mother
It has occurred to me for some time now that if Ayn Rand had been a mother, her rugged-individualism might have softened. Her philosophy is contrary to family and community life. It’s really moral subjectivism under the guise of objectivism, a very confusing message to people trying to appear sophisticated.
If Ayn Rand were a mother…
Category: Parenting, Social Issues, Truth is Simple
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Make your own cookies! (LOL).
Ahhh-given Atlas Shrug when I was 16. But my older brother who has always encouraged me to pursue a writing career. I know I've disappointed him. As an aside, he and his wife agreed to have no children when they married.
Sadly, he would have made a wonderful father.
I wish i could eloquently Randbust-but there's no way i could do it better or different than the Randbusters already are. thanks for your contribution, Stacy. (can't wait to read the article next week).
Great cartoon! (You ever see the one Tom Peters did on Pope Benedict and condoms? Check it out here: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=11798). Anyway, I think you've come up with the right answer to the discussion you and I had some time ago on Impractical Catholic: “Mom says she's too busy working.”
Exactly Frank! And if you get sick, figure it out for yourself.
Thank you FSM!!! I think you may still pursue that writing career.
Tony, That's it. I wrote my conversion story and in having to rehash all the past that's what I realized. Mom's too busy. So sad.
OK, guys when are you going to make a cartoon? It's easy and fun. First 1-2 are free.
LOL!!! I like this…. Facebook worthy!
What is contrary to society in adding the reality that we all expect things in return for the efforts we put forth? Catholics may delude themselves into thinking they can 'be selfless', but there are a hell of a lot of annoyed Catholics that increasingly (and historically) have found it hard to 'turn the other cheek' when the people they deal with do not 'do unto others' as they 'do unto them'. (I'm sure there's more than a few victims of the extremes of Catholic holy wars that would think Catholics want to be persecuted based on that golden rule)
Instilling a child with the reality that existence exists and that to maintain integrity with wanted to benefit from your own actions that others must be allowed to benefit from their own actions is hardly something that would be 'destructive to society'. However, instilling in your children that wishes make things happen instead of hard work, that invisible super-dudes live in the sky and watch out for you and that all you own belongs to those who need it will.
thewildwebster,
It's that rugged individualism doesn't work in a community. We all have to depend on others, especially as children.
And we don't believe God is a super-dude in the sky. Art may depict it that way because that's a way to express it, but that's not how we describe God.
I think the disconnect comes between the axiomatic presumption of the nature of the 'community' or the 'society'. i.e. does man exist as a societal being or does society exist as a man-made construct.
If the former, then altruism would seem to have some validity. But without a sentient man, man-made society would not exist either. And individuals have existed (and existed well) as nomadic beings. Society cannot exist without men willing to participate, but man can exist without the benefits of a society.
Therefor the latter principle seems to be true in which case altruistic responsibilities are a choice of the participants, not a requirement of the society itself.
(short version, rugged individualism isn't destructive to a community. But certain types of communities are enemies of individualism)
As far as what you believe, that's irrelevant in regards to your own arguments on society as well as mine. If the society/community is the important foundational principle as you suggest then the beliefs of the individuals in it are just as disruptive to the goal of a secure society as is your suggestion that individualism is. In other words, there are over 5000 religions currently 'in practice' on the globe today (a great many of them think that their spin on the 'god' thing is the only correct one – they can't all be right).
As long as there are competing beliefs then there are 'individual' beliefs that fit the same mold you are trying to claim is incompatible with society. Of course, with my emphasis on the individual, another person's beliefs are irrelevant except to the extent that the actions on takes as a result of them (dis)effect another making them equally irrelevant.
As far as my reference to 'the sky', this is a historical-context condensation of the history of belief in god(s). If you study the history of mystic belief, when man didn't understand much more than his basic surroundings, god existed in the rocks and trees and ground and sky. Once man learned to cut down the trees and break open the rocks and dig into the ground, and found no proof that God was there, he was only left with the sky.
Some religions placed god(s) across the seas – but then man learned to cross the seas and found no proof of god there either. It went many many centuries until man eventually mastered flight and found no proof of god in the sky either. He's not even out in space because we can now use our devices to look deeper into the cosmos then we ever have before and yet there's no big bearded guy looking back at us.
So god has now been relegated to living outside of space and time and stuff in general. No wonder religion hates science, it keeps evicting god.
(grr, crappy blog interface, mine lets you edit your comments after you post in the event of a typo.)
Of course as long as we are talking about Christianity and Catholicism, should I point out the obvious?
For example, your opinions are rendered inert immediately by a strict reading of the new testament (not my words, but the words of your book).
(Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:2-5, 1 Corinthians 11:4-7)
1st Peter 3:1 and 3:5 tells women to be submissive to their husbands. 3:3 says they should not style or braid their hair or wear any adornments (jewelry) or fancy clothing. I would also presume that wording to include the wearing of make-up and coloring of hair in that context. 1st Timothy 2:9 repeats this sentiment in the same fashion.
1st Timothy 2:12 again covers the submission of women and goes on to say they should remain silent, never teach or hold any authority over men. They should just be silent.
The comments in 1st Corinthians 11:4-7 are in the context of prayer and worship but say that women should cover their heads. To do otherwise is a dishonor that is akin to shaving their heads, and a shaven head should be covered.
But of course, that line of reasoning is not restricted to just women as people who believe in Yahweh in general aren't supposed to think for themselves or have their own opinions in the first place:
Old Testament
proverbs 3:5
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”
proverbs 28:26
“Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom [of God] are kept safe.”
Jerimiah 10:23
“LORD, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps.”
Jerimiah 17:9
“[Man's] heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.”
New Testament
John 15:5
“If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”
2nd Corinthians 3:5
“Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God.”
For let us not forget that Catholicism brought us the principle of original sin, and what was that sin for which we are all cursed from birth? Daring to 'know' be eating from the tree that made us sentient in the first place:
Genesis
2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
3:4-5 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”