Comments on Ayn Rand Biography

In Bloomberg article (interview) with a Rand biographer, the author says this:

For people who are passionate about what seems to me to be an unrealistic view of radical individualism, she makes the strongest possible case.What she lacked was empathy and a sense that there’s a social contract.

The interviewer betrays her view in the question, "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" Without reading the book, I think the interview is unfairly slanted against Rand and her philosophy. I'm guessing that's the point. Still, "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" is not an argument. It's simple, inflamatory propaganda.

Response to "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Great Recession"

The article I just read was not complementary to Ayn Rand. It was a slam, not necessarily inflammatory, but Gary Moore did misunderstand Ayn Rand. Furthermore, he placed too much emphasis on the person, and not enough into understanding the merits of Objectivism as a philosophical framework. What can I do to remedy that situation? What is it that Christians can take away from Ayn Rand? And what can Randians get out of Christianity? A lot.
First of all, it's the rational self-interest part that hangs everyone up. Rand called it "selfishness" and that didn't help. What she meant, and referred to elsewhere, was a focus on the individual, one's own highest possible good, in a way that Reason supports. Reason, according to Rand, supports activities that support one's own survival and thriving. Those activities are virtues. Without the activities that help us survive, there would be no values, virtues, or vices. According to Rand, anything that detracts from our ability to survive and thrive is a vice. Got it. This definition of virtue and vice makes sense, given that the individual is the center of the universe. And for Rand, the individual life is the lead in the play of her own life. What could be more obvious? But the message of Jesus is that God is the lead in the play of my life. He is the highest possible occupation of my soul, and my own life and thriving happens on a cosmic level only to the degree that I worship and serve the living God, the true God, the God of the Bible.
The author of the article in Christianity Today, August 27, 2010, speaks of Rand's anti-Christian posture as if she truly understood the Gospel. I don't think she did, and her writing makes that clear.
Rand's idea of Christianity was Kantian, wrapped around the idea of duty. When I first read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, I was affronted by her blasting distaste for all things religious, and I wasn't even a Christian! When I continued investigating her philosophy through her nonfiction, I understood what she reacted to the most was the notion of subjecting what she understood to be the highest possible value (her own life) to a very low value, something she didn't believe existed, a "non-entity." Christians don't view their own lives, or God, that way. John Piper, in Desiring God, made it as plain as anyone ever has. He talks about God delighting in our delighting in Him. In following our deepest desires for satisfaction, fulfillment, and thriving, God delights when those desires are met, recognized, find their conclusion in Him. In fact, He designed us that way.
The best illustration I have heard plays out when I think about my relationship with my wife. It's our anniversary. I have worked everything out, from the flowers, the chauffeur, the quiet table in her favorite restaurant, and a romantic ambiance. As she takes it all in, she is delighted. She turns to me as says, "Thank you. You went to a lot of trouble, and it's beautiful."
At that moment, I can respond in one of two ways that represent two very different heart conditions. I can say, "Think nothing of it. I'm just doing my duty as a husband." Or, I can say, "There is no place I would rather be than here, right now, with you." It's obvious which one of these heart motivations is the most honoring to her. She may even be dishonored by the first, feeling that I don't really love her, but it's all about fulfilling some idea that I have about my own husbandhood. In contrast, when I let loose and seek the greatest possible delight for myself, I go all out for her happiness because it makes me happy.
The Bible is full of commands to seek our highest delight in God because only He can fulfill our deepest longings and highest fulfillment. Does that mean that Gospel Christianity is the fulfillment of Objectivism? What a thought!

Creator and creators

Ayn Rand wrote this in The Fountainhead, through the voice of Howard Roark:

"The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
"And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind." -- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, page 679

Man's creative capacity is the means of his survival. Acting is his own rational self-interest, his own delight and satisfaction, the individual has achieved glory. To what extent would the Christian substitute individual "creators" for the "Creator"?

The Creator was not selfless. It is the whole secret of his power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A First Cause, a Fount of Energy, a Life Force, a Prime Mover. The Creator served nothing and no one. He lived for Himself.

And only by living for Himself was He able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind.

I had not thought of the Creator as acting for his own satisfaction and delight until I read John Piper's book Desiring God. The subtitle, "Meditations of a Christian Hedonist,"could easily have read "Meditations of a Christian Objectivist." His entire argument seemed to say that God is self-centered. God is the highest, most glorious, focus and occupation that anyone can enjoy, and so he is focused on himself. Where Piper, consistent with the biblical theme, differs from Rand is that Rand would say the individual is the highest, most glorious focus and occupation that anyone can enjoy, so he should be focused on himself. As always, I am interested in your thoughts.

The Killer Proposal

I've talked about the proposal before, but now it's becoming that time. The elements that I am compiling are 1) the "Grab" Sheet, 2) The Table of Contents (TOC), and 3) the Sample Chapter.

The Grab sheet is about 6-10 pages designed to sell the book to a publisher: Why should we pick this up? Who's the audience? What are you trying to do here? Who are you and why should you write this book? Why now? and other good questions. In addition, I talk about the competition. What else is out there and how is this different?

The TOC is a chapter-by-chapter treatment, kind of a narrative walk-through of the book. What is each chapter about and how does it serve a purpose? What is the point or argument in this chapter, and how does the chapter communicate that?

Finally, the sample chapter. I'm not even sure whether this is an actual chapter. I haven't written anything that qualifies yet. It's supposed to be a writing sample that is chock full of examples, like a trailer that gets you wanting to see the movie. In some cases, you've seen the whole movie by watching the trailer. For a movie, that's a bad trailer. In the case of the sample chapter, so I hear, that's a good thing, to a point. That is, you want your prospective publisher to get an full idea about your climax and punch line, but you still want her interested in the book.

Right now, I am writing all of these pieces at the same time. We'll see how it goes.

This is fun!

I have to say, "This is fun!" Sure, I'm up late and I'm sweating a [self-imposed] deadline. But, the challenge of formulating an argument that is complex and yet hangs together; that's energizing.
Today, I focused on putting together an in-depth mental plan for the first chapter, entitled "How does the Objectivist View the Nature of the Universe?" I know, it's kind of heady, but that's where the book needs to start if it's going to compare Objectivism and Christianity.
Especially at this foundational level of philosophy, I am finding that I have to go back and read more philosophical, and specifically Objectivist, literature. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have thought long and hard about these issues("existence exists"), and I have been drawing on their articulation. After all, I'm not trying to "reinvent the wheel;" I want to present these concepts in an accessible, educated-layman's framework.
So, I find myself asking questions like "How should this chapter flow?" "What are the questions that need to be answered?" "What level should I aim for, and what depth does that require?" That process has overwhelmed me, to say the least, but I am really juiced about what I envision as the final product.
And, I know that it's somewhat odd and a little freaky that I would get excited about it, but I suppose it's a good thing that I am, or I would be the wrong person for the job.