Comments on: More food for thought…

By: markdefrancisis

markdefrancisis — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:19:41 +0000

Robert Taylor,

What do you mean by effective(ness)?

By: Gerald L. Campbell

Gerald L. Campbell — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:20 +0000

Robert Taylor,

Are you writing to a site? Or do you have anyone’s comments in mind? Differing views were expressed, although there was a distinct effort made to dismiss her as you say.

But there are some, including myself, who think Ayn Rand has had an abiding influence on the last half century. I believe I said that above at September 17, 2009 at 12:15 am.

By: Robert Taylor

Robert Taylor — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:54:11 +0000

For Rand to have been so ineffective as many of you yahoos claim at this, ah hum, site, you are sure scoring points in favor of those of us who claim just the opposite. I would wager that several of you here have never read “Atlas Shrugged” from cover to cover.
Echo chambers such as this one further convince me that Ms. Rand WAS effective in espousing her philosophy of Objectivism. She herself made it very clear she was not to be considered a conservative…she was a radical for laissez-faire capitalism, radical being indicative of a fundamentalist. She also made it very clear that if one opts for personal altruism, that that is their choice just don’t try to force that silly concept on the rest of us via government fiat.
She is and was one of the most inspiring novelist and philosophers that I’ve ever read. If she indeed was, in your opinion, a symbolic dead horse and has but a meager following….why (now think about it, I’m not just throwing “spitballs” here) do you continually feel the need to beat it? Does that in some way embolden your own philosophical niche?

By: Gerald L. Campbell

Gerald L. Campbell — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:56:55 +0000

Mark Gordon,

The Catholic tradition has an intellectual aspect that allows for a full participation in political life. The evangelical tradition rejects the intellectual order and the intrinsic capacity of the intellect to know truth. Thus it is ham-strung in how it can impact politics. It has to turn to religiosity. Its agenda usually amounts to imposing restrictions on behavior. The Catholic approach tends to address hearts and minds with a view to changing culture.

If interested, read Jacques Maritain. He offers a richly developed analysis of the intellectual principles that can be used in prudential judgment. He shows how the deepest truths of the Catholic Faith can be given full participate in political life and yet do so within the framework of a separation of Church and State. In short, he felt that Catholics should feel quite at home in a pluralistic society.

So do I.

By: Mark Gordon

Mark Gordon — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:27:31 +0000

“Religion should not mix with politics.”

If religion shouldn’t mix with politics, why do you post on a site devoted to “Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics?” Why do you invoke Catholic Social Teaching by name and not just the philosophical underpinnings of that teaching?

It seems to me that your position has more to do with shutting the door on people who disagree with you (mostly about abortion) than with somehow ensuring the secular hygiene of the public square. It seems narrow-minded and intolerant, neither of which are “liberal” values.

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:05:31 +0000

John, you still don’t get it, but that’s okay. Let it pass.

By: Liam

Liam — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:56:05 +0000

An old college friend of mine holds a BB&T-endowed chair in Objectivism at a major university. The outgoing chairman of BB&T is an apostle of Rand and has made it his mission to break into academic philosophy departments where Rand was considered something of an embarrassing enthusiasm, shall we say.

By: John Henry

John Henry — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:53:36 +0000

Does the fact that you can count them on one hand suggest to you that maybe they are an exception? It certainly does to me. Also, it should be noted that there is a significant distinction between thinking free markets best serve the common good in many respects and being an Objectivist.

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:39:21 +0000

I do that that perspective because I have met three (at least) at a single institution which has been quite successful at inviting a good many others to come preach the Randian gospel on its campus.

By: John Henry

John Henry — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:35:54 +0000

There is an adequate number of “exceptions” to show that the image of “Randian Catholic social conservatives” is NOT a “straw man.”

One can take that perspective, I guess. But there really are very few Objectivist pro-life Catholics – I’ve never met one, in fact. To the extent the post suggests that Objecvtivism is widespread among pro-lifers, I think it’s addressing a straw man.

By: John Henry

John Henry — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:32:41 +0000

Here’s Darwin making the same point on the other thread:

So according to the linked sales figues 0.067% of Americans bought a copy of Atlas Shrugged in 2008. Quite a tidal wave.

Look, you’ll get no disagreement from anyone here that Objectivism is a terrible philosophy — most of the conservative Catholic blogs I read have written about this at one time or another….Apply a negative adjective and you’ll probably get agreement.

But honestly, painting this as somet kind of mainstream thing in conservatism is like saying the Folsom Street Festival proves that all progressives are into bondage and public nudity. Not only will you not find conservative Catholic bloggers lauding Rand, but secular conservative magazines such as National Review have been rejecting Rand and Objectivism since back when she was writing.

So yeah, it’s possible you can see someone with a “Going Galt” sign standing near someone with a pro-life sign at a protest, but there are virtually no ties between Objectivists and pro-lifers. Among other things, because the Objectivists are very loudly and emphatically pro-choice — as much so as Obama, in fact.

http://vox-nova.com/2009/09/17/clarifications-on-my-previous-post/#comment-64050

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:31:32 +0000

Here is what you said: “Rand is basically universally reviled among Catholic social conservatives” and “[you] are attacking a straw man.”

There is an adequate number of “exceptions” to show that the image of “Randian Catholic social conservatives” is NOT a “straw man.”