Christian Objectivism?

[Brant Gaede]

Reality is that which is. It is not an object of worship...

Your word. Not mine.

https://youtu.be/0FHEeG_uq5Y

[Selene]

Reality is that which is. It is not an object of worship...

And that folks depends on defining terms.

worship (n.) Look up worship at Dictionary.com

Old English worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (West Saxon) "condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c. 1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful "honorable" (c. 1300).

I worship John Galt.

I worship God.

Therein lies 95% of the miscommunication in public communication.

Has real effects on private ones also.

A...

[Guyau]

.

Robin (#23), a few years ago, I met a gay man in a long-term relationship with another man, living in a small town, and he was a member of the local Baptist church, “for business reasons,” he told me. To your first point, yes, and that ambiguity, at least since the Reformation, was basis of some fair criticisms of my post in that other thread from which my post was lifted to this one. Taking the ambiguity for given, I’d say that a lot of religious people love God very much, and this is one of the staying powers of religion. Their deity, in my naturalistic, secular take on that thing in them, is personified absolute goodness and perfection. It is their treasure radiating meaning in their existence, and often it is personification of their hope for endless life and love, concepts from here.

[Selene]

Folks, I find it intriguing that we are talking about Objectivism and Christianity.

I just did a search and this popped up from Jewish World:

The first public cause to which Ayn Rand donated her own money was the State of Israel.

I find this little-known nugget fascinating for two reasons.

One, it contradicts the idée fixe of Rand as not really Jewish. And two, it contradicts the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Rand’s followers often obscure, or quickly pass over, her Jewishness. The official Ayn Rand Web site, aynrand.org, doesn’t mention it. Neither does the Web site of her most popular book, atlasshrugged.org, nor the hagiographical site, facetsofaynrand.com.

Can you be a Muslim and an Objectivist?

Can you be a Jew and an Objectivist?

This article was from 2012 and a not so subtle attack on Paul Ryan.

You remember Paul Ryan right?

A...

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/ayn_rand_rosenbaum_20120815/

[BaalChatzaf]

Can you be a Jew and an Objectivist?

Objectivism was founded by people who were brought up Jewish but were no longer observant.

[Brant Gaede]

Can you be a Jew and an Objectivist?

Objectivism was founded by people who were brought up Jewish but were no longer observant.

Your implication is they once were observant. I don't think that was the case. Objectivism, as distinguished from John Galtism, was founded by Nathaniel Branden with the sanction of Ayn Rand who piled on in "The Objectivist Newsletter" and then "The Objectivist." Qua Objectivism nobody else except Barbara Branden counted for much though others did good, valuable and interesting work. Barbara ran NBI and made it go with tape-transcription courses. Her "Principles of Efficient Thinking" course was valuable but out of the Objectivism loop. Almost all of these folk were of Jewish extraction, however, and had that cultural bias. That bias was sometimes reflected in such as Rand's views about abortion. Jews are more apt to sanction abortion than Christians. There is also the Canadian bias. That bias was not Rand's except she became so exposed to Canadian Jews through Nathaniel. Nathaniel never really had to deal with the US military draft and never had that American urge to serve to fight for America. Whether you had ever been an American soldier who fought in an American foreign war wasn't quite tactilely real to him. It was much more of an abstraction to him than it was to me. Jews per se were also less likely to become servants of the state for cultural reasons. It wasn't just that he was of Canadian extraction. (I base this on five decades of direct and indirect contact with Nathaniel. For instance, when he evaluated you as a client for his psychotherapy he had you fill out a long questionaire about your life history including work and prior work. There was not one question about military service. Military service--and the draft--was of considerable importance to a young man in the 1960s and even early 1970s, but he was actually oblivious to its importance in spite of anything he wrote and said which I now think of as correct intellectualizations only. American warriorism is real. Canadian warriorism sounds like an oxymoron and, frankly, is for the most part.)

--Brant

[RobinReborn]

Can you be a Jew and an Objectivist?

Objectivism was founded by people who were brought up Jewish but were no longer observant.

I don't think that's true. Rand was barely brought up Jewish, her family celebrated some of the holidays but they stopped when she expressed her disapproval of them. They were largely secular.

I don't recall anything in Nathaniel or Barbara's books indicating they had bar mitzvah's or anything like that.

[RobinReborn]

Folks, I find it intriguing that we are talking about Objectivism and Christianity.

I just did a search and this popped up from Jewish World:

The first public cause to which Ayn Rand donated her own money was the State of Israel.

I find this little-known nugget fascinating...

Fascinating yet false. Read the Letters of Ayn Rand, she donated money to the Finnish cause during the Finnish-Soviet war.

[Selene]

Folks, I find it intriguing that we are talking about Objectivism and Christianity.

I just did a search and this popped up from Jewish World:

The first public cause to which Ayn Rand donated her own money was the State of Israel.

I find this little-known nugget fascinating...

Fascinating yet false. Read the Letters of Ayn Rand, she donated money to the Finnish cause during the Finnish-Soviet war.

Apparently, you can provide the exact section.

Provide it please.

A...

[william.scherk]

Objectivism was founded by people who were brought up Jewish but were no longer observant.

Your implication is they once were observant. I don't think that was the case. Objectivism, as distinguished from John Galtism, was founded by Nathaniel Branden with the sanction of Ayn Rand who piled on in "The Objectivist Newsletter" and then "The Objectivist."

How would we know if Rand and founders were 'observant' at any point in time? If Barbara was still with us, she could let us know. Was there a menorah, prayers, synagogue, holy feasts celebrated, obeisance given to gods, bar mitzvas, ritual baths, circumcisions, matzohs, Purim?

What makes the question difficult is that children can be born into an 'observant Jewish' family, and for all intents and purpose are considered observant themselves, even if they have no faith in gods in their hearts. So, we can equivocate on the word phrase 'observant Jew' ...

I have always thought it was incorrect and even cruel to render out a child as a Jewish child, or Muslim child, or Christian child, as if each child was permanently stamped by a form. I imagine that Ayn Rand, Nathan and Barbara each rejected supernaturalism in childhood, as I did, and never looked back to their ethno-cultural or religious 'community' as a defining pole of their identity. (as for being 'observant Objectivists, that's a whole other ball of wax)

There were no religious struggles in the Collective, I don't think, in the sense of struggling with Jewish antecedents or the pull of childhood indoctrination. I'd like to think that there were no religious cloaks that still needed to be cast off by the time of the Collective.

But maybe I am forgetting or turning away from the attractions to a Jewish sensibility of the so-called cult of Objectivism in New York, c 1962-1968.

Almost all of these folk were of Jewish extraction, however, and had that cultural bias.

Do you mean they had more of a cultural bias that did you in your development from childhood to adulthood? I will have to read Nathaniel's memoir again to see if he touched at all upon the 'culture' ... maybe you mean that each had a collectivist grounding and a pro-Jew bias resulting, even if they participated in Jewish ritual or study perfunctorily or not at all.

I mean, a pro-Jew bias would have a range of weight, I think. Perhaps the heaviest bias would felt in a devotion to Israel, where an entirely secular non-believing Jew can still obey a culturally Jewish mandate: support the state of Israel. Whether Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or without faith at all, I can understand a sense of solidarity with the larger ideal of 'national' homeland. In this sense unhyphenated Americans have next to zero solidarity with any particular ethno-national group, whereas Americans-hyphenated still retain heart-room for the Old Country.

I bet for most of us here we can tell the exact ethnic mix we exhibit on our faces -- I am Norwegian/Norwegian/Amish German/British-Irish/Dutch/French. Do I give a special shit about my ethnic homelands? Not really. Does a Mamishian give two hoots for Armenia, or a Marotta give a hoot for Italy? Does a Gaede give a goddamn for Germany?

That bias was sometimes reflected in such as Rand's views about abortion. Jews are more apt to sanction abortion than Christians.

I didn't know that. I can imagine the Jews had come up with some rules over the centuries, rules that were harsh on one side (Orthodox/ultra-Orthodox) and modern on the other (Reformed), but I'll have to do some study of Judaism & abortion. A 2012 survey of Jewish values in America supports your view -- at least in the latest readings. Here's an excerpt:

There is also the Canadian bias. That bias was not Rand's except she became so exposed to Canadian Jews through Nathaniel. Nathaniel never really had to deal with the US military draft and never had that American urge to serve to fight for America.

I am not so sure about a Canadian bias. It at least would be far harder to measure than the Collective's Jewish bias. I think you are right that Nathaniel himself had no urge to join the military. Conscription in Canada was the cause of two national crises, in both world wars. Branden, a 'gifted student,' entered high school during the Canadian war effort (~1942). I had always considered him an intellectual, bound for the life of the mind. I don't know anything about his views on war, nor his views on Canada. That he did not choose a military option for himself is not in itself a Jewish-Canadian indication, is it?

It seems to me that he left Canada behind fully by the time he was at UCLA, somewhere around 1948-ish. At most, he might have some nostalgia for the Toronto of his youth. Who knows?

Whether you had ever been an American soldier who fought in an American foreign war wasn't quite tactilely real to him. It was much more of an abstraction to him than it was to me. Jews per se were also less likely to become servants of the state for cultural reasons.

I don't know anything about Jews as servants of the state. The cultural reasons for avoiding service seem obscure. What is a servant of the state, in this context, soldier, tax-collector, legislator, policeman, judge, lawyer, spy, scientist, nuclear physicist?

What you say about fighting in an American foreign war does illustrate a relative cleavage between Canada and the USA. Since WWII, when we were the closest of allies, Canada's various governments have declined the chance to fight alongside Americans in several notable absences: in for Korea, out for Vietnam, in for Gulf War one, out for Gulf War two, out for almost everyone of the US excursions in Latin America. In with NATO in Serbia/Bosnia, in with the anti-ISIS Coalition in Syria/Iraq, in with the Western coalition in Libya, out with Star Wars. In with NORAD, out with regard to placing nukes on Canadian territory. If I could sum up a Canadian bottom-line, it is a hesitation to get involved in 'adventures' ...

Differences in militarism are somewhat explained by history, and perhaps by virtue of the 'Canadian Character,' however one might assess such a thing.

I note, off-topic, that opinion surveys consistently show American have an extremely positive of view of Canada, despite historical differences. We are the 'most favoured' of the nations in your view..

Back to the Jews, the question of gods and God. From the same survey as above:

It wasn't just that he was of Canadian extraction. (I base this on five decades of direct and indirect contact with Nathaniel. For instance, when he evaluated you as a client for his psychotherapy he had you fill out a long questionaire about your life history including work and prior work. There was not one question about military service.

Weird, in that military service not be subsumed under 'work.' It sounds like he had no pre-existing empathic ground with you as a serviceman and veteran. Was there -- despite absence in questionnaires -- an interest in dealing with any war-issues you may have had? Was war experience and war-residuals included in therapy?

Military service--and the draft--was of considerable importance to a young man in the 1960s and even early 1970s, but he was actually oblivious to its importance in spite of anything he wrote and said which I now think of as correct intellectualizations only. American warriorism is real.

The draft haunted America in some ways, for sure, because Vietnam. Enough to lead thousands of draft-age Americans to come north and receive asylum. I can only imagine what Rand thought of draft-dodgers. I think the impact of the draft-dodgers was to further distance Canada from a fall-in with US military engagements.

If Branden was a Canadian and never took American citizenship, then was he ever subject to the draft anyway, married or not?

Canadian warriorism sounds like an oxymoron and, frankly, is for the most part.)

Of course. The Canadians are remembered as great warriors probably only in the Netherlands. There is still a celebration every fifth anniversary of the liberation by Canadian soldiers in that country (you may shed a tear for Canadian warriors if you read the story at the link).

The key to the non-warrior culture of Canada -- if there can be such a thing -- is in the First World War. Canada came of age as an independent military power, but the lessons of war were mixed. So, you are quite right that there is no warrior culture here that could come close to the depth and grandeur of America's devotion to its forces and its aggressive martial history.

This is the Canadian War Memorial at Vimy, France, which commemorates a terrible battle. It is not a place for celebration. The closest you might get to military celebration in Canada is with re-enactments of the War of 1812.

-- I was intrigued by surveys showing Canada at the top of the list of countries with 'positive influence' in the world. By this table, from 2014, distrust runs deep for some nations. I wonder which nation Americans would flock to, if they needed to 'escape.' If not to the English-speaking similar culture to the north, where?

If America's 'shining city on a hill' is overrun by dark forces, where would Americans repair to? I would say there is a lot of 'Gulch' property for sale up here.

Edited June 1, 2015 by william.scherk

[RobinReborn]

Folks, I find it intriguing that we are talking about Objectivism and Christianity.

I just did a search and this popped up from Jewish World:

The first public cause to which Ayn Rand donated her own money was the State of Israel.

I find this little-known nugget fascinating...

Fascinating yet false. Read the Letters of Ayn Rand, she donated money to the Finnish cause during the Finnish-Soviet war.

Apparently, you can provide the exact section.

Provide it please.

A...

I can't give a direct link but if you go to :

http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452274044/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433111124&sr=8-1&keywords=letters+of+ayn+rand

click 'look inside' and search for 'finland' you'll find it on page 43...

Now... can you provide me the evidence of Rand sending money to Israel? I'd like to know exactly when so I could place it within a historical context, if it was in 1948 there would be a good argument justifying it. If it was in 1967 or 1973 there would be a slightly worse argument. I wouldn't want to lose the historical context because it's pretty clear to me that while Israel may have been victimized by its neighbors in the past, now it is the aggressor.

[Selene]

Folks, I find it intriguing that we are talking about Objectivism and Christianity.

I just did a search and this popped up from Jewish World:

The first public cause to which Ayn Rand donated her own money was the State of Israel.

I find this little-known nugget fascinating...

Fascinating yet false. Read the Letters of Ayn Rand, she donated money to the Finnish cause during the Finnish-Soviet war.

Apparently, you can provide the exact section.

Provide it please.

A...

I can't give a direct link but if you go to :

http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452274044/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433111124&sr=8-1&keywords=letters+of+ayn+rand

click 'look inside' and search for 'finland' you'll find it on page 43...

Now... can you provide me the evidence of Rand sending money to Israel? I'd like to know exactly when so I could place it within a historical context, if it was in 1948 there would be a good argument justifying it. If it was in 1967 or 1973 there would be a slightly worse argument. I wouldn't want to lose the historical context because it's pretty clear to me that while Israel may have been victimized by its neighbors in the past, now it is the aggressor.

First of all, I don't give a damn about whether, when, why or who Ayn contributed to.

I ran a specific search for a theme I am writing about and that article popped up. I felt OL should know about it.

Now your profile states that you are thirty (30).

How did you come to know Ayn's works?

Also, out of curiosity, are you a student, worker, business person?

I may have missed it.

Thanks.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand announced at the Ford Hall Forum in the Q & A early 1970s she had contributed to Israel. That was the Yom Kippur War, I believe, but it could have been before that war. She also stated she had never done that before. Her argument was for the good and right Israel represented. I'm not a good source, however. One needs to get a transscription if not the audio. It must exist someplace.

--Brant

Rand was no Zionist and there would have been no reason for her to contribute to Israel in 1947 because the Jews kicked the Arab ass so fast

it was not 1967; I was in Vietnam and Arizona and not in Boston at all that year assuming she only did it that that once, which I believe, at least up to that date (1973)

[william.scherk]

Conversation overheard at a bar. Men with the world at their fingertips.

Bruce: "I just did a search and up pops this little-known fact, ladies and gentlemen. The first public cause Ayn Rand donated her own money to was the State of Israel. An atheist, non-practicing Jew since she made her family cut the Jewish crap back in Saint Pete. And the first country she ever gave money to, Israel. Fascinating."

Drew: "Fascinating, yet false. In The Letters of Ayn Rand, she said she sent money to the Finn side in the Finnish-Soviet war."

James: "Oh, is that so? Provide the exact section, can you?"

Drew: "Indeed. Page 43, Now can you provide me the evidence of Rand sending money to Israel?"

James: "Excuse me. I asked for evidence, you gave it. You ask for evidence, Dan gives it. Dan?"

Dan: "Yeah, okay, right that she said she gave money, and in public, Woulda been around 1973-ish, Ford Hall Forum, Boston. From memory, gentlemen. Put your hands down and drink."

James. "Shut up, thank you. Cheers. First of all, I don't give a damn about whether, when, why or who Ayn contributed to. That wasn't my point. My point was that it was the thing that stuck in my eye when I did a search. It means something to the context of the thread. Jew. Israel. Public Cause. Money. I'm not finished. [dramatic pause] Now your profile states that you are thirty (30) three tens (sixty one-halfs) 1/3 of 90 years of age. How come you know Ayn? Books? Hockey cards? Huh? And out of curiosity, what do you do -- student, worker, business person, spy, tinker, bonesetter, climatologist?"

Drew: "I am a drone operator for a secret deep state, nothing to do with my attitude toward Israel 1973 and Israel 2015 or to my relationship with Rand. Why do you call her 'Ayn' anyway? -- did you ever sit on her lap or hold her hand or French kiss her? I guess it could be argued that Rand did not publicize her donation to the Finns, at the time, fearing for family back home, but felt no such compunction n 1973. So, you are right, but I beg points for bringing in another piece of information to our deliberations. Gentlemen."

James: "Points then. Gentlemen?"

Dan: "Gentlemen, I am dry. Whose round?"

Drew: "Mine. Set 'em up again, Maestro, if you please."

James: "Compunction. Quite a word. Brings to mind a story. When Ayn and I were young and in love, and America a greater place, why I set out from the porch one day on a search ... stop me if I have told this story before.

Dan: "You've told this story before twice but that's what passes for conversation around here. Keep going. It's your round next."

Drew: "Yeah, but. Whatabout--"

Dan: "He and she weren't young or in love at the same time, see. It's got a good punchline, so shut up. Pay yer darn dues."

Edited June 1, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I see you like your martini shaken, not stirred.

--Hick!

[anthony]

Give anything spin after spin after spin, and eventually it gets a life of its own. What's happening in American colleges right now, as only one place. This political correctness, which has deemed Israel the "aggressor". At what point does uncompromising self-defence begin to look aggressive? Does anyone care to think about that?

Nobody mention that Israel has occupied or had in its power half of Lebanon, the whole Sinai, Gaza and across into Jordan--and pulled back forces or, in Gaza, its civilians, and given the territory back. Always. Not to mention that no nation in the region could stop the Israel Defence Force and Air Force if it went on the 'aggressive' , now or any time. Everybody's the expert, they've heard all the right sources of spin. Few though have followed Israel's saga with Palestine (if not daily) regularly for 40 years and can make up their own minds about who the real aggressor is. Distorted facts and suspect morality seem to run together.

The Palestinians want peace.

No, they do not.

Israel does.

A minority in the West Bank and Gaza would qualify that "we can all live together in one land (except of course, you know you Zionists will become demographically outnumbered, and may become secondary citizens)". Most want it all - without the Jews, by hook or by crook. Hamas and the PA have assured them they can take Israel, um, 'back' (after some vengeance) one day. Forget about negotiations of '48 and '67 borders - that's smoke and mirrors, to buy time with Kerry and whoever comes after him.

A rub is in the hectares that Israel robs here and there. I don't put Israel forward for sainthood, it makes its mistakes. But to put it on equal moral footing (not to say, lesser) as its enemies is shameful. The thugs who run both Palestinian areas could have forestalled any of these minor land incursions by coming -sincerely- to the peace table and establishing their statehood and firm borders. On any of several occasions. Nope, they get the world's guilt money (and the aching sympathy from college students) by precisely -not- doing that. It is wearying going round on this, and I'm seeing it doesn't make a difference to fixed minds.That I'm hearing the propaganda thoughtlessly repeated by well-educated Americans, disturbs me. Fact: half the world wants Israel (and by implication, Jews) dead and buried; the other half might take in the survivors.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand's donations:

From Letters of Ayn Rand (p. 43)

(To Maj. Gen. John F. O'Ryan of Fighting Funds for Finland. Finland was engaged in a war with the USSR.)

February 15, 1940

Dear Sir,

Enclosed please find my contribution to your fund for the purchase of armaments for Finland.

Allow me to express my admiration for your work in behalf of a great cause.

From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 96):

(Q:) What should the United States do about the /1973/Arab-Israeli War?

Give all help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are still practically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modem science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.

This is referenced as Rand's 1973 Ford Hall Forum lecture, "Censorship: Local and Express."

When she said that, she probably forgot she gave to the Fighting Funds for Finland thirty years earlier. But maybe not.

Rand had a Romantic novelist's habit of trying to frame everything as the biggest, the best, the first and so on when she wanted to emphasize it, most often if it was something she did and felt strongly about. When one does this a lot, over time one starts believing ones own bullshit.

That sounds harsh, but I would like to frame this as Rand, the normal human being, not Rand The Genius Of All Geniuses or Rand The Hypocritical Devil.

There are plenty of neuroscience studies nowadays that show the mind changes the brain (neuroplasticity) and that memories by themselves, without refreshing, can become altered.

As to donations, Barbara said Rand, all her life, gave small amounts to people she believed in. It's not such a stretch to include causes in this. The people Rand tended to favor were aspiring writers of promise, but her hatred of communism was so great, I doubt these two donations above to fight it were the only causes she gave to.

Hell, she worked her butt off for Wendell Willkie. I find it inconceivable she did not donate something to that cause back then. All we have to do is think about her history a little and lots of other plausible possibilities arise.

It's OK to believe a person with a habitual way of doing things actually did it without having to document every single instance.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As to being a Christian Objectivist, all I can think of is why would someone want to do this?

These are labels, not the ideas themselves.

Is it possible for a self-identified Christian to follow a lot of Objectivist thought and still be a Christian? Yup.

Is it possible for a self-identified Objectivist to follow a lot of Christian thought and still be an Objectivist? Yup.

Is it possible for both to be good? Yup.

Is it possible for both to be bad? Yup.

Is it possible to be a Christian Objectivist? I suppose so, but in the same manner the same person can be a citizen of the USA and China, or a white black guy, or female man. It only has metaphorical meaning, not literal.

In literal terms, it is not possible to be a Christian and an atheist at the same time. Nor is it possible to be an Objectist and believe in a personified God who set His son up for self-sacrifice as the greatest good.

However, in metaphorical terms, one can fudge a lot.

I say if a person wants to call himself a Christian Objectivist, go for it. And if people want to fight him over it, go for that, too. To me, there is very little substance or value here. And what little there is, it tends to be collectivist in nature.

The more I live, the more I dislike being considered a label. My life has meaning beyond labels.

Michael

[RobinReborn]

Well said Michael...

I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a debate about Israel and Rand's contributions to it...

[Brant Gaede]

The more I live, the more I dislike being considered a label. My life has meaning beyond labels.

Michael

A good label for you. The "No Label" label.

--Brant, who can't--can't keep his mouth shut

but I heroically try (yeah, right--the jejune hero)

[Objectifish]

Below is the quote from CS Lewis which made clear to me that Christianity and Objectivism were fundamentally incompatible. Lewis' description of the proud person sounds exactly like that of an objectivist hero (and his description of a vain person sounds exactly like what we'd call an unhealthy narcissist). He just reverses the moral judgement.

The trouble begins when you pass from thinking, "I have pleased him; all is well," to thinking, "What a fine person I must be to have done it." The more you delight in yourself and the less you delight in the praise, the worse you are becoming. When you delight wholly in yourself and do not care about the praise at all, you have reached the bottom. That is why vanity, though it is the sort of Pride which shows most on the surface, is really the least bad and most pardonable sort. The vain person wants praise, applause, admiration, too much and is always angling for it. It is a fault, but a childlike and even (in an odd way) a humble fault.

It shows that you are not yet completely contented with your own admiration. You value other people enough to want them to look at you. You are, in fact, still human. The real black, diabolical Pride comes when you look down on others so much that you do not care what they think of you. Of course, it is very right, and often our duty, not to care what people think of us, if we do so for the right reason; namely, because we care so incomparably more what God thinks. But the Proud man has a different reason for not caring.

He says "Why should I care for the applause of that rabble as if their opinion were worth anything? And even if their opinions were of value, am I the sort of man to blush with pleasure at a compliment like some chit of a girl at her first dance? No, I am an integrated, adult personality.

All I have done has been done to satisfy my own ideals—or my artistic conscience—or the traditions of my family— or, in a word, because I'm That Kind of Chap. If the mob like it, let them. They're nothing to me." In this way real thoroughgoing Pride may act as a check on vanity; for, as I said a moment ago, the devil loves "curing" a small fault by giving you a great one. We must try not to be vain, but we must never call in our Pride to cure our vanity; better the frying-pan than the fire.

Some context: from 2013 to 2015 I developed an interest in a wide range of ideas and philosophies; in particular, I got deeply into Buddhism, and also various strands of conservative and libertarian thought. Something of a spiritual awakening - I dabbled quite a bit with psychedelics and various forms of spirituality before deciding to focus on Buddhism and meditation.

I read Ayn Rand for the first time in 2014 and so had half-understood Objectivist ideas floating around my mind along with those of many other thinkers. I realised that I was going to have to find some coherent philosophy to organise this mess. Christianity intrigued me, as it combined spirituality with a pro-mind, pro-civilisation, optimistic worldview that was lacking in Buddhism. (Buddhism does have a coherent philosophy, which is why it appeals to so many people, but ultimately it's based on a metaphysical denial of the law of identity, and aims to reduce experience to a sensory blur).

I'd encountered some very smart, rational Christians online, generally Orthodox or Catholic. A lot of them were trying to mix libertarian ideas into their conservatism, so I thought Christianity would let me have the best of both worlds: worldly success with spiritual attainments. That Lewis quote caused me to seriously rethink this - I know Lewis isn't considered a great theologian, but his point is solidly Christian. Pride is a cardinal Objectivist virtue, and a cardinal Christian sin.

Shortly after this I came across ITOE, from there got deeply into serious Objectivist philosophy, and realised it was a very solid framework.

[Objectifish]

As for the concept of God, I think that atheism (and not agnosticism) is the only consistent position with respect to objectivist epistemology.

Once upon a time I'd have been agnostic and would have said that "well, ultimately you have to accept reason on faith - how can you rationally determine that reason works?"

But this is not consistent with Objectivism. If you're an Objectivist, you accept that if you perceive an entity, you know that it's there. This is the basic foundation for rationality: that you perceive a table, and not simply a sensory blur. You know that there's a table there (if you deny this knowledge, then no further thought is possible). From this, you can infer that things exist, that they have identities, and that your consciousness can perceive them. From further observation and thought you see that existence consists of a physical world of time, space and matter and that it follows consistent laws; that your consciousness depends on your nature as a living being and requires a logical process of concept formation to gain the fullest understanding of the world. At no point do you need to postulate a supernatural realm parallel to this one, or an intelligence which created the universe.

The only reason to believe in God is confusion over the relationship of consciousness to existence, and/or of the metaphysical status of concepts. These questions have confused most of humanity, so you're in good company if you think that consciousness is somehow primary, or that "existence" must be instantiated somewhere as "Being itself", but you're not an Objectivist.

[anthony]

Below is the quote from CS Lewis which made clear to me that Christianity and Objectivism were fundamentally incompatible. Lewis' description of the proud person sounds exactly like that of an objectivist hero (and his description of a vain person sounds exactly like what we'd call an unhealthy narcissist). He just reverses the moral judgement.

Hi Isaac, Aside from your estimate of Lewis' vain man which seems to me right, I don't agree with his "proud person" resembling in any way an Objectivist. This person is first and last still dependent on others' recognition, while pretending to himself he's not. They then are his standard of value and his is a "second-handed" type of 'pride' (and subjective egotism) don't you think? If I were asked, I'd say that the Objectivist will pay regard to others, being ends in themselves, but will derive his pride only from his accomplishments, not by comparison with them. "Looking down" on others - needing them to "look up at you", both the same subjectivity.

CS was talking through his hat!

Welcome to the forum (and you're a Lewis too, I see).

[Objectifish]

Hi Isaac

Hi!

Aside from your estimate of Lewis' vain man which seems to me right, I don't agree with his "proud person" resembling in any way an Objectivist.

Lewis was certainly thinking about actual people he'd observed, and maybe even tendencies he'd recognised in himself. Like a lot of people, he can't distinguish healthy egoism from subjective egotism - he equates "not caring what others think of you" with "looking down on others". So he's talking through his hat in that sense, but I think he's correctly identified a particular type of person, and chosen to judge that type negatively (which is consistent with Christianity).

He says "Why should I care for the applause of that rabble as if their opinion were worth anything? And even if their opinions were of value, am I the sort of man to blush with pleasure at a compliment like some chit of a girl at her first dance? No, I am an integrated, adult personality.

All I have done has been done to satisfy my own ideals—or my artistic conscience—or the traditions of my family— or, in a word, because I'm That Kind of Chap.

Relevant concepts bolded. He's noticed that people who are proud tend to be independent, integrated, and pursuing their own ideals or artistic conscience.

(The "traditions of my family" line is also interesting -- he probably met some old aristocrat types who also fit this same mould, with a slightly different worldview).

[Alexander Warner]

There can be nothing like "Christian Objectivism" because it is a contradiction. Not only that Christianity is a religion and hence employs the means of faith and objectivism that of reason, but there is so much difference in ethics and everything. Christianity advocates altruism and Objectivism, rational selfishness. There is no connection