Can a good Mormon be an Ayn Rand Objectivist?

[_Gadianton]

Before I can answer that question, I need to know:

What part/parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy is/are incorrect, if any?

Here is one:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/gold_standard.html

Gold and economic freedom are inseparable, . . . the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and . . . each implies and requires the other.

This is false.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. Where store-of-value considerations are important...

And on and on....blah blah blah

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold . . . .

This is false. The reality of oil could be considered here to undercut gold, but the purist laissez-faire means to keep inflation in check is the FOREX market. Let the greed of nations and the greed of citizens everywhere unite and cancel each other out in the global, free market of currency.

If you want to protect yourself from inflation, you can still buy gold, but you can also get into a hedge fund.

Must of us need inflation these days, however, as we tend to have debt rather than savings.

[_huckelberry]

Before I can answer that question, I need to know:

What part/parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy is/are incorrect, if any?

I am unsure if correct or incorrect applies,consider this summary from her:(from Any Rand Institute web site,introducing objectivism)
"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1 Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2 Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3 Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4 The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
................................................................................
I see numbers one two three as close to tautologies. I do not really disagree and find them potentially thought provoking, or not as one choose. I do not see number four as following from the first three but what I see is instead a simple preference in what she would like government policy to be. I do not share her taste.

[_moksha]

3. People interpret Christianity differently

Which do you choose?

I choose Christianity. Those other people would be confusing it with the Religious Right, which is a different animal altogether complete with a snout from which it excretes a sticky substance enabling it to cling to money.

[_bcspace]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is completely incompatible with Christianity. Mormons who love Rand must either reject fundamental components of Objectivism or they must reject fundamental components of Mormonism.

Considering the following definition from wikipedia, I don't initially see anything contrary to LDS doctrine here including self interest:

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

[_EAllusion]

BCSpace -

Ayn Rand believes that an an act's moral worth depends on whether it advances self-interest or not. This is called ethical egoism. So, a command by God is moral only in so far as obeying it advances your self interest. If it didn't, you'd be morally obligated to disobey. You may believe this. Do you?

Regarding Ayn Rand, I discussed her a bit in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25302&p=623952

I linked a pretty good explanation of where Rand goes wrong.

http://web.archive.org/web/200102211241 ... /rand.html

[Guest]

Bcspace, your cafeteria philosophy of man is showing again.

Rand, is by deed and definition an anti-Christ. Perhaps you should read the Book of Mormon guidance on what is of God and what isn't.

Quick hint for you, Rand does not inviteth or enticeth others to believe in Christ.....she did the exact opposite.


" But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him."

[_Kishkumen]

17 And many more such things did [Korihor] say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength....

[_LDSToronto]

Ayn Rands books are too long and, having flipped through a couple, seem very boring. So I have never read her stuff based on the superficial fact that I don't really want to waste time reading a long, boring book.

In order to hold to a particular philosophy - Ayn Rand, Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, John Maynard Keynes, Homer Simpson - one has to spend some time studying and immersing themselves in the works of the individual or individuals who produced the philosophy. Perhaps I'm naïve, but whenever I hear that someone agrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy (especially if that individual is a Latter-day Saint), I am inclined to discount their opinion unless they've read her works beyond wikipedia and a few pithy quotes. Hell, Hitler can sound reasonable if you limit him to sound-bites.

But, especially with Rand, because her books are uninteresting and seem needlessly lengthy, I'm much more sceptical when I hear people say they adhere to her philosophy.

I'm with Zee, there are more interesting things to learn about.

H.

[_lulu]

How necessary is atheism to Rand's system? Is there any way it could it work for a theist?

lulu - who loves it when Mormons say they love the atheistic socialist founded kabutzes, why, they're just like the United Order

[_Equality]

How necessary is atheism to Rand's system?

It is essential. The foundation of Objectivism is described in the quote that bcspace posted up-thread (but he is apparently too thick to realize the significance of what he posted):

reality exists independent of consciousness,

That is a fundamentally atheistic position. It is the very foundation of the Objectivist philosophy: reality exists independent of consciousness and does not depend on a divine creator to bring it about.