It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus, John Galt, Howard Roark all preach the same message. Was Jesus an Objectivist?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I’ve been reading quite a few threads that talk about Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism and it is quite evident that her work is almost universally misunderstood or misrepresented as a sociopath’s manifesto. Though I’m sure that it is the adopted creed of most sociopaths, I do not believe that it was ever intended as such. Much like Christianity and the Bible, Objectivism and Ayn Rand’s works have been dissected and have been quoted out of context to justify the unreasonable actions of those who would try to do harm for personal gain. I compare the two works because when you break them down to their fundamental principles, they are nearly identical by my own interpretation. They both teach the value of honest reasoning, and free will as a sacred human right.

How did I draw that conclusion? Jesus gave only two commandments, the first of them was to essentially live by the golden rule. In Rand’s work we see one theme that stands out far above any other and that is that the only true evil in this world is when one man takes by force the physical, intellectual, or spiritual property of another man for his own gain. In other words, Rand illustrates that free will is a sacred human right deserved by all. However, both books are widely quoted by those whose actions contradict the true principles taught. They are the basis of this bad behavior because of certain ideas within that are taken out of context.

I just read an article that put Rand’s work into perspective quite nicely and I will just give a few quotes because it is quite long, but I do urge everyone to read the full article before you decide to comment.

Who Isn't John Galt? by Robbie Gennet, HP



But I would posit that there are two very different books in each of her novels and, depending on the reader, you get one or the other, but not both. They both have to do with selfishness but one veers towards Evil while the other, towards Salvation. Let me explain.
If you are a Capitalist or fan of Capitalism in general, then Rand's books speak to your inherent desire to make as much money as possible, pay as little taxes as possible and basically get yours regardless of others. The Dick Cheneys of the world douse their selfish mantle with the hot cologne of "F##k You" hovering around their every move, their vision and purpose focused on the almighty dollar while ignoring the human chattel crushed beneath their Panzer tank mentality.


My expansion:
Reasonable men will do what is right by others, this requires a degree of empathy. The capitalist elite like Cheney, show no capacity for empathy and therefore are not just nor reasonable. Instead this makes them hypocrites, and NOT OBJECTIVIST since reason, according to Rand, is the objectivist “highest absolute.”



Once again, look at Bill and Melinda Gates, rich beyond any of our wildest dreams and yet, donating billions to combat malaria and improve education around the world. I suppose one could say that Bill Gates is an altruistic Capitalist as well, making those two terms not so incongruous. But find me one altruistic Capitalist on Wall Street, giving up his bonuses to help his coworkers and sacrificing for the greater good. So far, it feels like Wall Street was the Titanic and when everyone rushed for the lifeboats, they had already sailed away to the Hamptons with Top Level Management and all the good champagne.


My expansion:
The fundamental difference between Bill Gates and a broker or fund manager like George Soros is productivity. Bill Gates invented and produced a software that improved and changed technology for the better. Consequently, he receives billions for his contribution to society which has been exponentially more productive because of his work.

George Soros has contributed nothing. He is not wealthy because of any invention or anything that his company produces. Instead, he has made billions by collapsing national currencies, and making bets on wall street with other peoples money and using that money to manipulate the market for profit. Yes, he is very successful, but most his success has been built on the misfortune of others. Now tell me, which of these two types of men claims to be an objectivist and which one actually is?

Jesus helped those in need by healing the sick or disabled and by giving to the poor. I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where it was indicated that his ministry supported those who were saved by him indefinitely. In fact, it was the Bible that first said that if a man will not work, he shall not eat. If a person was unable to work or to be reasonably productive, he enabled them by healing, teaching, or giving to them. In essence, what he did and taught was the empowerment of the individual to live freely with the ability to provide for himself in a manner that is just and reasonable.

Justice in it’s purest form is balance, and the Golden Rule is social balance. Therefore, a reasonable man will live by the Golden Rule. Rand defined objectivism as, "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." This is the connection between Jesus, Galt, and Roark; the reverence of the human spirit and it’s natural right to carry on without domination or oppression by any man, government, or spiritual being.

Why isn't Ayn Rand ever considered to be a humanitarian?
edit on 26-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheThirdAdam
 


Capitalism, and free markets in the hands of honest, morally principled men and women can be a wonderful thing. You are absolutely correct, that many of the ideas of freedom can be used for ill purposes that actually place one man before the next. Society has become so warped that they cannot see that a rich person providing a job to a poor person does not always add to the collective good. The corporate vehicle maintained by the force of government, has done little to promote equality of all men and opportunity for all. Rather, it has allowed those with power to obtain more power at the sacrifice of others.

Freedom of the individual is a collective ideal. Although, so much emphasis is placed on the individual we lose track of the collective goal of freedom. Freedom is not supposed to rob the prosperity of one, to transfer to another. Or limit the opportunity of one, to uplift another. In a really free market prosperity is in the hands of each individual. But at no time in history has the amount of disparity between classes been so great than it is currently. When one man earns in a year enough to live on and sustain their life for their entire life, yet another person works in one year just to maintain themselves throughout that year, something is wrong.

I am not sure about Jesus being an objectivist, but I can see the point you are making. I would be interested to see quotes comparing the John Galt and Jesus comments that you think are applicable.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
First, you must understand that Ms Rand was an illuminist. At one time she had been a lover to Philipe de Rothschild and he is believed to be a component of the John Galt composite. As such, nothing Ms Rand appeared to be on the surface can be trusted. The Book Atlas Shrugged was actually a blue print for the NWO. If you read my posts you will find that I do not believe in the NWO. Nor did Ms Rand. However, the illuminits cannot even hint at their true goal.
John Galt is a shadowy character. He is the brilliant protagonist of Atlas Shrugged. If you have read the book then you know that those portrayed as the antagonists (Jim Taggart, Mr Thompson etc...) are all incompetent boobs. So how could they conceive and execute such an elaborate "plan" as the one that they execute in the book? It is evident that those characters are being manipulated at every step from behind the scenes, but we the readers are never clued in as to what exactly is doing the manipulating. I propose that it is Galt. Who else has the brain power to do it? I further propose that Galt is an archetype for the antichrist. What we are seeing today with financial and governmental collapse taking place all over the globe is Atlas Shrugged being implemented. There is a John Galt behind the scenes pulling the strings. When the world has had enough and cries uncle he will emerge with all of the answers.

To answer your question, I know Jesus and Jesus is no John Galt.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I think you are not defining Ayn Rand quite in context of what she said in her own words in many interviews. Objectivism is the opposite of altruism. This is the easiest starting point to understand the error in thinking.

I wrote an article on this that may be of value. My perspective is from a Christian standpoint. Basically, the error is in how we view our soul. If we view our soul as something we own, we tend to trample on the souls of others. I do not expect you to understand where I am coming from on this, but at least consider what I am saying here. The root of all problems in this world arise form how we view our position here on earth. Pride results in objectivism. Humility and love result in the fruit of altruism.

Here is the article.

---


It is an error to believe that your body owns the soul. No human possesses the soul. Most of us are brought up believing that the nature of this world exists within this backwards dualistic mindset, forcing us to willfully buy into the false notion of objectivism—viewing reality as an identity we own. Not only does this mindset cause us to grasp at our own souls as possessions, we tread on the dignity and rights of countless souls around us in the wake of our choices. Our misunderstanding of what it means to be moral creatures resides in this false belief of the body possessing the soul.

If we flip this counterfeit, egocentric view back to reality, we see that the body does not possess the soul, but the soul possesses the body as a gift from God. Understanding this one point allows us to see the world as it truly is. Buying into objectivism merely denies this reality and tramples the bestowal we owe back to God under a metaphorical foot of pride. Nevertheless, true reality will not be so easily placated. The bill for this false mindset of egoism will eventually come due for each individual. Only Christ can pay this bill in full.

Life requires a choice from each of us: Either we steal away the gift of life as a possession through egoism, or we honor God by paying the gift forward for the good of others through altruism. Stealing gives the reward of what is taken. Giving pays back abundantly and endlessly, across many lives and throughout many lifetimes. The choice should be easy to make when viewed according to the truth of where the soul resides. Law is an unnecessary boundary for the altruistic individual.

Egoism—the pursuit of rational selfishness and the pursuit of personal happiness—is the deception of our egocentric society. On the surface, this materialistic, me-centered mindset seems like a plausible philosophy for personal advancement. The immediate rewards of the self-centered mindset are undeniable and hard to pass up. These rewards are immediate and seem to emanate endlessly from the fountainhead of temporary abundance and perceived security. It is easy to shrug off altruism for fear of uncertainty and loss. Egoism is the easy path to follow but ultimately destroys the soul in the process. No legal requirements will be enough to hold back egoism in a materialistic society.

Altruism—the denial of self in loving-kindness to others—represents the only truth that can set the world free. Taking on the title of Christian ultimately requires the sacrifice of being Christ like. This is the narrow path leading to a true life of abundance. This wealth cannot be lost and is the only way to find contentment in life.

Does altruism require us to give a beggar a dime, and then pay for our lives dime by dime? Do we give our way forward in life as payment for the choices made by others? Are we the beneficiaries of our own lives or debtors to God? The true individual is the one who dares to live for the needs of others, fully considering himself to be equally in need. The true individual recognizes that God ultimately carries our burdens and gives us all that we possess in this short life.



Ayn Rand - Objectivism

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Paul of Tarsus- Altruism

1 Corinthians 13:4-13

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.









edit on 26-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
I think you are not defining Ayn Rand quite in context of what she said in her own words in many interviews. Objectivism is the opposite of altruism. This is the easiest starting point to understand the error in thinking.

I wrote an article on this that may be of value. My perspective is from a Christian standpoint. Basically, the error is in how we view our soul. If we view our soul as something we own, we tend to trample on the souls of others. I do not expect you to understand where I am coming from on this, but at least consider what I am saying here. The root of all problems in this world arise form how we view our position here on earth. Pride results in objectivism. Humility and love result in the fruit of altruism.


Do you want to see another point of view? One that allows you be independently happy, that requires validation from only God who made you in his likeness? Who do you worship, God or needs? Is your reflection of your God that of a slave to the will of all men, condemned to be at the mercy of all needs? If it is moral to only serve others, then how does one serve God?

Why would Jesus say that he came that we would have life abundantly and not say to have life enslaved to any will but our own?

I am by no means against giving and helping others, but it is for the purpose of creating a better world for my self. Others may benefit, but so do I.

Objectivism, applied socially, is a phillosophy of mutual trade benefits. The golden rule applies, this even works with charity if you think about it...

"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

edit on 26-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)


Oh
edit on 26-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
Why would Jesus say that he came that we would have life abundantly and not say to have life enslaved to any will but our own?


No, as a Christian you're enslaved to God's will, not your own, under penalty of eternal torture.

Also, I'd like to see how you'd spin Matthew 22:21 where Jesus says, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" into an objectivist mantra.
edit on 26-8-2011 by Torgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Besides having a philosophy that compares with Austrian economics and libertarianism in general, Ayn Rand is also a great story teller. Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite fictional books story wise, and I cringe when I think of how easy it is to slaughter it as a movie which I heard was coming out soon. But anyways, interesting point about Jesus and John Galt, I guess I never really thought of it that way, the main difference of course is that John Galt does not believe in a God, however, their moral philosophies are identical, treat others as you would like to be treated (and not treat others like scum). So it's an interesting point to say that even if one person is religious (Jesus) and the other is not (Galt) they can still agree on a moral philosophy. Nice.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Torgo

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
Why would Jesus say that he came that we would have life abundantly and not say to have life enslaved to any will but our own?


No, as a Christian you're enslaved to God's will, not your own, under penalty of eternal torture.

Also, I'd like to see how you spin Matthew 22:21 where Jesus says, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" into an objectivist mantra.


1. Man has free will and is not enslaved to God. Read Boethius for further clarification on this. If there were no free will man's evil would be predestined and thus there would be no room for punishment, and thus no "penalty of eternal torture" which is a later idea that has nothing to do with the bible or spirituality in general.

2. Jesus said to place your treasurers in heaven where they can not be stolen, as opposed to placing your treasurers on earth where they can become rotten, so in other words Jesus is telling his followers to reject material pleasure and replace it with love of God. Money being the root of all evil, Jesus is telling his followers to give to Caesar what belongs to him (like if everyone returned all the money the federal reserve created we would all be free of their hold).



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Thank you for fielding that one, i'm glad that you took this exactly how I meant for it to be taken. If a person has any empathy their moral compass will be Jesus' teaching, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..."

The actions of Galt and Roark were never unfair or against Jesus' teaching of moral ethics. Also if you define God as the manifestation of all that is good and just and deifne those by Jusus teachings; then you could say that they did believe in God but weren't very concerned with whether or not there was really an afterlife. I take that stance spiritually myself. I strive to live a moral and ethical life and if that gets me into heaven, great. If not, I can take comfort in know that I was happy in my integrity.

Btw, im not trying to convert anyone here. I just want to look at some abstract comparisons between the two books, the more I look at them the more they seem alike. I will give a detailed expansion on this later, showing why I think that objectivism is a more compassionate and charitible way of thinking.
edit on 26-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Well, as one of the hallmarks of Objectivism is selfishness, I kind of doubt Jesus would give it a stamp of approval. Particularly as faith and charity is required of Christians, which flies in the face or Rand's strict observance of natural laws.
edit on 26/8/2011 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
If you get punished and rewarded for certain choices, is it REALLY free will?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Odette
 


consequences are just a natural law, they do not prevent anything. if you stop yourself from doing something because of the potential consequences, it is still your free will to stop.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Perhaps I should give my perspective of altruism to clarify why it is that I believe that is unhealthy and counter-productive. I will give an analogy.

A heroin addict ask you for $50. You know that he is in severe pain because of withdrawals and know that if you were to give it to him all of that would be relieved with the drugs that he would use your money to buy. The easiest and altruistic thing to do would be to just give him the money and get him out his misery. I say that this is the altruistic choice because there is absolutely no way that this could benefit you. It would be merciful and selfless because you would never see that money again and wouldn’t expect to. The problem with altruism is that it helps nobody but the receiver and even then it will only be for a moment. I does not truly help anyone because there is no personal growth and when there is no real growth, the situation cannot improve.

The objectivist option is to refuse to give the quick fix altogether. It would seem cold at first but the objectivist knows that if he enables the addict then he will have no reason to get clean and live a normal and healthy life. By refusing, he has shown compassion for the addict by helping him get closer to a healthy and sober life that will be more productive. The addict will hate the objectivist at first but will later realize the great service that he actually did him (or maybe not, irrelevant). Either way, the benefit is mutual because the addict is better and the objectivist lives is a world that has one less addict, plus he still has $50.

This an extreme scenario but the principle applies to any situation that offers the choice between baseless charity or an objective push toward a long term solution. Many confuse being a deadbeat with objectivist refusal to enable bad/immature behavior.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I still don't agree, free will should not included consequences that can only lead to good or bad. It's blackmail. Is a man honnest simply because he is too afraid to steal?

But I like your thread and your opinions.

If you don't give the drug addict 50$, somebody else probably will. But I see your point. Cruel to be kind.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


So are you arguing that hell doesn't exist, and is just a figment of Christian dogma? The bible and Jesus both clearly condone slavery as a way of better understanding our relationship with God (I wonder why that is...):

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


Originally posted by filosophia
Money being the root of all evil, Jesus is telling his followers to give to Caesar what belongs to him (like if everyone returned all the money the federal reserve created we would all be free of their hold).


He was talking about the need to pay taxes to the Romans. Even Paul mentions the need for taxes:

"Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority." (Romans 13:6-7 NLT)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Sorry to break it to you but Jesus is an idea.

An idea made to create comfort.

This idea has been successful for more than two thousand years.

But now with the age of the internet more than 20% of Americans are now non-religious.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odette
I still don't agree, free will should not included consequences that can only lead to good or bad. It's blackmail. Is a man honnest simply because he is too afraid to steal?


If there such thing as consequence then there would be nothing. Your actions effect your environment. Not blackmail, just the byproduct of coexisting.

He may be percieved as honest, but he would actually be just cowardly and lacking integrity



But I like your thread and your opinions.

If you don't give the drug addict 50$, somebody else probably will. But I see your point. Cruel to be kind.


Thank you, like you profile pic


I'm afraid that is the paradox of this whole debate, the fact that there will almost always be an enabler makes the objectivist positive efforts rarely effective



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odette
If you get punished and rewarded for certain choices, is it REALLY free will?


It's not absolute free will, that could only be held by an independent mind not bound by any limitations. But humans do have reason enough to decide between what is good or bad, some do this better than others.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Torgo
reply to post by filosophia
 


So are you arguing that hell doesn't exist, and is just a figment of Christian dogma? The bible and Jesus both clearly condone slavery as a way of better understanding our relationship with God (I wonder why that is...):

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


Originally posted by filosophia
Money being the root of all evil, Jesus is telling his followers to give to Caesar what belongs to him (like if everyone returned all the money the federal reserve created we would all be free of their hold).


He was talking about the need to pay taxes to the Romans. Even Paul mentions the need for taxes:

"Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority." (Romans 13:6-7 NLT)




Heaven and hell are states of mind. They are not actual places.

The bible has been altered many times throughout history, and Jesus was not a slave owner nor did he show favor to slavery, he did however mock the faith of a slave to their master, saying how wonderful it would be if the slave showed the same faith towards God. Jesus laid down just two laws, if you can show that he laid down more than these, then that biblical passage is in contradiction with the bible itself, so it means the bible is not a divine document. I'm not a Christian so I have the liberty of saying that.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


It doesn't matter if you are a christian or not, facts are facts, and this my friend is absolutely true.

The Bible is a mesh o of three different religions that contradict each other on everything but those two laws. It generally has good phillisophical ideas but the fact that it was written by men, censored by the first catholic church, and used as a political tool to unite the masses makes it's hard to follow without question.

those two laws are the only thing that should be taken from it as a solid basis for personal belief system... the rest is debatable
edit on 26-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join