Can a good Mormon be an Ayn Rand Objectivist?

[_RockSlider]

Way early in this thread, there was given the paradox from a Christian viewpoint, where one's salvation in part has very individual, self centered requirements, and yet also the contrasting requirement of forgetting one's self and serving thy neighbor. This has struck me hard before and did again here.

I can see that ignorance might be bliss and yet might turn out a time bomb. As I have grown older I have become much more liberal than to the upbringing that I have spoken of (women, gays, religious views etc.).

Maybe an old dog can learn new tricks. I can see that there is much more to this than I have comprehended thus far.

[_bcspace]

Way early in this thread, there was given the paradox from a Christian viewpoint, where one's salvation in part has very individual, self centered requirements, and yet also the contrasting requirement of forgetting one's self and serving thy neighbor. This has struck me hard before and did again here.

Why? Isn't forgetting oneself a commandment and doesn't obeying the commandments lead to self improvement and salvation? And aren't those in one's self interest?

[_Morley]

Way early in this thread, there was given the paradox from a Christian viewpoint, where one's salvation in part has very individual, self centered requirements, and yet also the contrasting requirement of forgetting one's self and serving thy neighbor. This has struck me hard before and did again here.

I can see that ignorance might be bliss and yet might turn out a time bomb. As I have grown older I have become much more liberal than to the upbringing that I have spoken of (women, gays, religious views etc.).

Maybe an old dog can learn new tricks. I can see that there is much more to this than I have comprehended thus far.

+1

[_lulu]

the battle between a pure Capitalistic economy verses a Socialist even Communistic Economy.

Hasn't happened yet because there has never been a pure capitalistic economy.

[_zeezrom]

...there has never been a pure capitalistic economy.[/color]

What about a pure communist economy? I'm sincerely wondering this, being a Marxist ignoramus.

[Anonymous]

...there has never been a pure capitalistic economy.[/color]

What about a pure communist economy? I'm sincerely wondering this, being a Marxist ignoramus.

I would say no there, too, with the possible example of the Paris Commune,* though it was so short-lived as to be more a historical glimpse than a fully realized "state" or "society."

*pm-ing you some materials explaining this.

[Guest]

...there has never been a pure capitalistic economy.[/color]

What about a pure communist economy? I'm sincerely wondering this, being a Marxist ignoramus.

Not that either.

And that's where I come from. Humans and their endeavors will never be perfect.

The question is how to live with imperfection.


PS, Blixa, feel free to PM the stuff too, including the material for Rockslider.

[Guest]

...

[_Equality]

the Ayn Rand Objectivist definition I posited was not challenged and it contained no mention of God or the non existence of God.

Objectivism is atheistic. If a "good Mormon" can be an atheist, denying belief in supernatural entities (gods, angels, and the like) then, and only then, would it be possible for a "good Mormon" to also be an "Ayn Rand Objectivist," which is the question at issue. From The Atlas Society web page:

Objectivism holds that it is simply nonsense to speak of anything "supernatural"—literally beyond or above nature. The term "nature," in the broadest sense, refers to the world we perceive, the world of objects that interact in accordance with causal law. If we discovered some dimension or universe that had radically different properties from the environment we live in, it would still be part of nature. If we could discover it or it could affect us, it would have some real, specific properties and would interact with our world in some way. However strange it might be, its characteristics could be compared in meaningful ways with things we already know, and it could be measured somehow. In fact, science has already explored some very weird and alien realms, as compared with the level of reality we see and hear. To pick just one example, light functions in ways so strange that we are not sure how to describe it: wave or particle? But even so, we know a tremendous amount about it, and use it to banish the night and communicate around the globe in the blink of an eye.

The supernatural is supposed to be beyond human comprehension, to exist in no particular way, to affect our reality miraculously, beyond any and all physical laws. And indeed, supernaturalists make great hay out of the areas where science is silent either because the question is not really scientific or because the scientific jury is still out. It is as if they resent science for not yet explaining every single issue to their satisfaction, and yet insist that their most precious beliefs be immune to rational scrutiny.

In effect, the supernaturalists want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that gods, angels, and devils exist, but are not anything in particular. They hope to go to a heaven by some means, but not any specific means. And heaven must be a real place (some even say it is a lush garden stocked with virgins or a cheerful land in the clouds), but it isn't anywhere real. The Buddhists even go so far as to deny that the realm beyond—nirvana—is any place at all. In fact, supernaturalism amounts to a brazen advocacy of contradictions. But, as Ayn Rand pointed out over and over, contradictions can exist only in the human mind, not in reality as such. No fact is essentially contradictory.

So there is no world beyond nature, nor any life beyond this one. But in contrast to the supernaturalists' view of nature as a vale of tears, an oppressive prison for the soul, Objectivism holds that we live in a "benevolent universe." We are beings well-adapted to the real world in which we live, with the free will to carve our own path and the ability to achieve happiness and even exaltation. Reality does not watch out for us, and there is no reason to think any deity does so either. In fact, we must watch out for reality, as Ayn Rand recognized when she summed up her metaphysics with Francis Bacon's dictum "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." But command nature we can, and this is what makes the universe essentially benevolent: It is propitious to beings like us.

As for being an "antichrist," she openly admitted such and was quite proud of it. Here is an interview with Mike Wallace from 1959. Between the 4:00 and 5:00 minute marks, Wallace quotes from Atlas Shrugged and asks her for her view on religion and she says she is out to destroy the very foundation of Judeo-Christian morality. Can someone be a "good Mormon" and adhere to such a philosophy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1m1hBtGxtY

[_Chap]

There's nothing wrong with trying to keep something simple.

But the trick is to find things that are both simple and true. That's the difficult bit.

Are we meant to just leave understanding up to the intellectual elitists?

Never be content to leave understanding to those who insist they know better because they belong to an elect group. Getting understanding is a long hard road, one whose end sometimes seems further away each step we take. But knowing that there are things you don't know, and trying to get at least the questions clear, even if you can't think of any answers - that is what matters most.

(Terms like 'intellectual élite', whether used to refer to 'us' or 'them' are a waste of time. People are either serious about understanding more, or they are not.)