Oops!
We just found out that the new changes to TJEdRefers generally to the concepts presented in the book A Thomas Jefferson Education, written by Dr. Oliver DeMille. We also have an Introduction to Thomas Jefferson Education available elsewhere on this site..org do not display correctly on older versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, i.e. the one you are using right now. We are actively working to fix this problem, and we're sorry for any problems you encounter. Until we get things fixed, you may wish to update your copy of Internet Explorer to version 7 or download the free Firefox browser, since these browsers are known to work. Otherwise, keep trying back. We hope to have everything working correctly in a few days.
Sincerely,
Russell Keppner
TJEdRefers generally to the concepts presented in the book A Thomas Jefferson Education, written by Dr. Oliver DeMille. We also have an Introduction to Thomas Jefferson Education available elsewhere on this site..org Administrator
Why is "selfishness" wrong?
I've read through some of the responses here about the book "Atlas Shrugged: and about Ayn Rand, and would like to challenge some assumptions, as well as one of my main beefs with the George Wythe culture that I have observed.
First off, how do you all define this term (selfishness) you are throwing around and why is it "wrong?"
I find evidence in all of my own study of scriptures to support much of what Ayn Rand wrote about selfishness. I think if you studied a bit more about the person and what she actually understood as truth you might gain some insights about how she was not a moral relativist. She actually defined morality more objectively than most people do. She just didn't depend on they mystical to define it.
Many of her followers are what I like to call objectivist mystics. They like to reject all mysticism, but then fall into the error of believing that all religion is mysticism. I too reject mysticism. I don't accept anything as true simply because someone says it's true.
Now there are people for whom I have a great deal of respect and if they say that something is true, I'm more inclined to accept that until I do my own research, but that is called having faith in their understanding until I gain an understanding of my own.
selfishness, in my opinon
selfishness, in my opinon ,is considering your wants before others needs...considering your opinion and desires over God's (or if you are Godless I will substitute principle here). I believe there are exceptions but to assume you are the exception to satisfy your desires or for your feelings and without thought of others...that is selfish.
Don't prepare a lesson prepare yourself
(Teaching no greater call)
I'm listening to this book
I'm listening to this book right now. I have some thoughts...what are the differences between socialism and the law of consecration?
How does her understanding of charity differernt from Christ's?
How does her youth and Godless childhood effect her understanding of God and religion?
How does the lack of moral absolutes jive with her concept of economic absolutes?
Why is give a forbidden word in the valley and should it be?
What does the 20th centruy motor factory teach us about zion?
What do I reward in my home? need? love? obedience? productivity?
How would effect our nations values if we honored a man enough that we could blaspheme a person's name?
I think there is a lot to learn from her book...seriously broken as it is. I read it in college and much of the economic stuff was lost on me...which is difficult as it comprises a bulk of what is useful about her writing. She is a compelling story teller, but morally off the charts. It is telling how she views children and womanhood. It is fascinating how she identifies huge economic ripples from various actions, but ignores moral ripples.
gee mostly questions here...
Don't prepare a lesson prepare yourself
(Teaching no greater call)
Excellent Questions
This is an excellent discussion and one that I would love to have with someone. I think your questions are good ones and an excellent place to start a very good conversation about truth, morality, and good/evil.
Here are my responses to your questions:
---
"... what are the differences between socialism and the law of consecration? "
That is an excellent question. However, I see very little, other than superficial, similarities. All the similarities have to do with material things. All of the differences have to do with the problem addressed by Frederik Bastiat in his essay "What is Money?"
In this dialogue between himself and a colleague F----, his colleague starts out by saying, "Hateful Money! Hateful Money!" and Bastiat is trying to guess why? He gives an excellent problem with socialism:
"Ah! Now I have it. How could I have been so blind? You, too, are the inventor of a social reorganization - of the F--- system, in fact. Your society is to be more perfect than that of Sparta, and, therefore, all money is to be ridigly banished from it. And the thing that troubles you is, how to persuade your people to empty their purses. What would you have? this is the rock on which all reorganizaers split. Ther in not one, but would do wonders, if he could only contrive to overcome all resisting influences, and if all mankind would consent to become soft wax in his fingers; but men are resolved not to be soft wax; they listen, applaud, or reject, and - go on as before."
The whole problem with socialism has to do with several things. 1. It defines wealth as directly and intergrally related to the material world, and things. 2. It values the group above the individual. 3. It requires that all individuals give up their individuality and become, like Bastiat said, soft wax in the fingers of those who would "reform" society. Freedom of will, thought and conscience must be forfeit to the will and understanding of the reformer.
Consecration is completely different. First of all, it recognizes that human life, both its spiritual and its physical aspects are the only things that have intrinsic value therefore it values all addition of each human life. Each person is an asset to the group. Next, each individual is valued. The group is only as valuable as the individuals from which it is comprised and this is essential. Lastly it does not seek to mold the individual to the desires of any leader or reformer. It takes each individual as they are and seeks to grow and benefit the group utilizing the uniqueness of each individual.
---
"How does her understanding of charity differernt from Christ's?:
I would suggest the same about your own understanding of charity as it compares with Christs. This is a better question. We are seeking for truth, not to find the fault in the way we misunderstand one particular author.
---
"How does her youth and Godless childhood effect her understanding of God and religion?"
That is probably the most rational question you asked in your entire post, and the one most beneficial to understand Ms. Rand. If you take this context into consideration, you may see that you agree with her more than you don't - even on morality.
---
"How does the lack of moral absolutes jive with her concept of economic absolutes?"
You misrepresent Ayn Rand's concept fo morality. She does have a moral absolute. She just defines it differently than you do. I suggest you put some time into how you define morality and see if it is based on actual reasoning or a dependence on others to define it for you. I would venture to say that you and I share many of the same moral principles. But I see only a very few places where Ms. Rand differs. You seem to see her as the polar opposite.
---
"Why is give a forbidden word in the valley and should it be?"
The question "... and should it be?" is by nature a subjective question. It depends on what is valued. Your question also depends on what is meant and understood by "give?" In Mulligan's valley the word give was forbidden because of the meaning that was understood - something for nothing. Nothing was given or accepted that was unearned. This would be the ideal in a society under consecration. In fact, an attempt at consecration will fail unless this standard is upheld.
---
"What does the 20th centruy motor factory teach us about zion?"
Very little. See comments about socialism and the law of consecration above.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a socialistic concept and has no place in the law of consecration, as applied in the 20th century motor factory.
"What do I reward in my home? need? love? obedience? productivity?"
Those are very excellent questions and probably some of the best questions to ask when seeking to live by the law of consecration. The answers are very personal and unique to each individual. I see no value in sharing my own answers here.
"How would effect our nations values if we honored a man enough that we could blaspheme a person's name?"
No idea what you're asking. Perhaps you could clarify?
I disagree that Atlas Shrugged is broken, any more than tany other book. For sure there are ideas and concepts presented in the book that are morally repulsive to me, even by the definition which Ayn Rand holds. None of the things that I find morally repugnant, which Atlas Shrugged does not, give the whole story about how those involved are benefitted or harmed by their choices.
Someone I admire once said about Atlas Shrugged that if you want to learn about how to have good family relations, Atlas Shrugged is probably not your best choice. However if you want to gain a correct understanding about political economy, there are few books better. Yes, you can find everything taught in Atlas Shrugged somewhere else. But not many books have so much truth all in one volume. I suspect that this is why several people have said that they regard that book as next to the Holy Bible as important reading. I personally don't take it that far, but I do value the plethora of truths taught in Atlas Shrugged.
socialism and law of
socialism and law of consecration...when I hear socialists describe their ideal society..(no poor among them and working for the common good ) I understand those goals. My point of this question was to focus on the heart and how compelling some things actually destroys them. Perhaps my question is more specifically how do they look different or similar on the surface, and how are they different or similar in the heart?
I am not looking at Ayn Rand as my opposite or the opposite of Christ. I am looking at truth...charity, or law of consecration, or the concept of giving. Then I am trying to see where Ayn Rand stands and how her representation of the concept helps me understand truth and where I stand in relation to it.
why are there so few woman in the valley? Why isn't real motherhood valued as a noble role just as some of the creative scientists, or entreprenuers?
I'm interested in reading Bastiat about money.
I appretiate the concept of praising the best people can do instead of worrying how you will compare if they do well. I really like that about Ayn Rand.
I do feel Atlas shrugged is broken. The heroine helps someone have an affair. Not causally or unknowingly, but completely. Love is misrepresented as is God. Religion is always used as a negative conception. Never living your life for another ... That doesn't mean there is nothing to learn. that doesn't mean I'm perfect or it's opposite...but it is how I categorize Atlas shrugged.
Don't prepare a lesson prepare yourself
(Teaching no greater call)
Law of Consecration vs Socialism
socialism and law of consecration...when I hear socialists describe their ideal society..(no poor among them and working for the common good ) I understand those goals. My point of this question was to focus on the heart and how compelling some things actually destroys them. Perhaps my question is more specifically how do they look different or similar on the surface, and how are they different or similar in the heart?
As I said, I read this while investigating the LDS church, and so the ties between socialism and the law of consecration really struck me (I was reading Lund's "The Work & The Glory" series), and it took me a few years to really sort out the differences in my mind.
I think you really hit it on the head when you note that compelling someone to impart of their substance is what drastically differentiates the two. I also think that the setup of the system plays a part. In short, it comes down to brass tacks, or more specifically, who is managing the brass tacks. With the law of consecration, Heavenly Father is managing the re-ordering of necessities. With socialism, imperfect people are, and imperfect people suffer and succumb to temptations. And so, while I would be willing to impart of my substance to help the poor, I resent the idea of giving my money to line some politicians pocket.
But ultimately - and I had not thought about this when I considered the differences - Heavenly Father wants us to give willingly and from love. If the government is forcing us to give, we are not only less likely to have a Christlike change of heart but are (I think) more likely not to.
Going back to the brass tack method of distribution - consider the differences between the US welfare program and the LDS bishop's storehouse. How do the recipients feel? In one case, a handout is given with often little thought to how to improve the situation so that no more handouts will be needed; in the other case, temporal needs are met but a) usually some type of work, labor, or "pass it on" helping is done and b) leaders, be they bishops, home teachers, or relief society presidents, attempt to help (as much as allowed by the recipients) to change the situation so that it does not become an ongoing process. And it is done with love and prayer, rather than coldness and anger.
I keep meaning to re-read Rand, but I'm on a James Madison kick right now, so I'll have more to contribute to the discussion in another month or so, LOL.
Nola
Interesting take
I agree that there are some broken aspects of Atlas Shrugged. But, other than scriptures, I don't think there is any book that does not have some broken aspects. Making all books broken because they all have some broken aspects.
I disagree, however that love is misrepresented. Much of what she says about the relationship between a man and a woman is more accurate than anything by Charlotte Bronte, for example. In Jane Eyre, the heroine falls in love with a married man and then returns to him even though he proved himself completely untrustworthy and deceptive. I don't think I've ever read a more warped representation of healthy love between a man a woman.
Ayn Rand does have an erroneous perception of God and religion. This is because of her experiences with religion. Having spoken with many people who consider themselves religious, I see so many that use religion as an excuse for a failure to think for themselves. This is true for most of religion now a days in my opinion. They believe that faith is just hoping really hard in something that you don't understand. This is the religion that both Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson rejected. As Thomas Jefferson said, in response to criticisms about his failure to associate with any of the religions of the day, "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. " Religion, when based on mysticism is exactly that - tyranny over the mind of man.
I think your over concern with how many women are in the valley says more about your sensitivity and feministic tendencies than it does about Ayn Rand's. Doesn't it sound a little petty to worry about how many women were in Mulligan's Valley compared to how many men? Who says that real motherhood isn't valued in the valley as much as the profession spoken of. As I remember it, there was not an exact inventory of all the people in the valley. There very well could have been mothers in the valley.
As for the concept of never living your life for the sake of another: there is a truth behind this concept. I don't completely agree with John Galt's little pledge, verbatim. However the sentiment behind it would be a lesson well learned by most religious people.
Right before I had written
Right before I had written that post about the number of women, I had heard in the CD (I'm listening to the book?) that Dagny asks about the women in the valley. That's why it struck me. I'm a woman and I admit to carrying about woman and motherhood.
IMO pregnancy is a form of living your life for another and so becoming a desciple of Christ... Neither want you to become nothing or less to help the other but instead somehow this amazing service frequently helps you grow and increases your ability to love.
Love is misrepresented in how the John Galt people destroy the outside world in hopes their friends will come to learn quickly. that isn't love. I wouldn't give an alcoholic drinks to hope he crashes sooner. I Understand the concept of letting someone feel the natural consequences of their actions. Sometimes love has to be VERY patient to wait for soemone to learn for themselves.
Dagny's relationship with Reardon is so patently unlove...love does not encourage someone to break their marriage vows . in none of Rand's books, that I know of, is there a healthy marriage relationship. Yes that is subjective in how I see healthy.
Love cannot only be felt by mental elite..I do understand that love can be felt more by someone who is fulfilling their mission.
Don't prepare a lesson prepare yourself
(Teaching no greater call)
I read this book when I was
I read this book when I was 17, at the same time I was investingating the LDS church. I think the thing to remember is that Rand grew up in communist Russia. Her writing clearly demonstrates what happens when that attitude takes control, when socialism becomes the nation's goal. Frankly, while I completely disagree with her look-out-for-number-1 idealogy, I think that we are leaning in that direction as a nation and wish that more people would CAREFULLY read her novels and pull out the truths needed. I don't remember details - her books are on my list for this year's personal readings - but that is what has really stuck out to me.
Re: Atlas Shrugged
I haven't read it, but my impression has always been mixed; you're saying that Ayn Rand's writing is the philosophies of men and the truth mixed together?
Re: Atlas Shrugged
I remember reading Atlas shrugged. What a dangerous feminist that lady is. Everyting gentle and nurturing about womanhood is decried. I have yet to figure out how it empowers woman to say being womanly isn't good-be like a man! Then don't even be like a good man-=be like a stereotypical bad man!
more later....its bed time
britt
Question your assumptions
I doubt from your comments that you really read the book. None of those things you said about Ayn Rand hold true to my own observations about her writings and philosophy.
Please identify ONE woman
Please identify ONE woman in Ayn Rand's books that is really womanly. One that honors her role as a mother and wife. A woman who uses her brain amd isn't afraid to use it to nurture. A woman like Abigail Adams.
I understand her concept in many of her books that a woman realy wants a man stronger than her...but I don't like how she shows that strength in foutnainhead for example.
Don't prepare a lesson prepare yourself
(Teaching no greater call)
Re: Atlas Shrugged
The only time I saw a "good" woman was when Dagny was being shown the valley and she sees a woman with 2 boys. The woman says her profession is a mother and that it is her duty to raise her children outside the school system so they will know how to think and be themselves....I think that was one of the few things I did like.
So heres a question...Do you see it as possible for our nation to become like the one in the book?
Possible?! Have you not
Possible?! Have you not seen the news lately?
Re: Atlas Shrugged
I read Atlas Shrugged at age 16. My Dad gave it to me and then we never talked. I bought her philosophy hook line and sinker for about 6 months. Trusted no one, allowed myself to love no one (because in her world if you love someone you will hurt them so its better not to love in the first place). It was a dark place to be.
Unfortunately I see it (her and other humanist philosophies) too much in our society. Particularly what I hear of TV. Don't have it but cringe to think of all those people being fed on "Desperate Housewives" etc.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is DEEP, and that's a pull for many, but she definitely follows Satan's pattern of mixing truth with blatant lie.
Wow! So what exactly do you
Wow! So what exactly do you see as Ayn Rand mixing truth with blatant lie?
Re: Atlas Shrugged
Is it by Ann Rand? I started one of her books, and attended a colloquium about it with some GWC people (BTW, DON'T do that if you haven't read the whole book! eek!) and I learned a LOT. She has some truths in her philosophies, and some very BROKEN things in her writings. She was a person who, like Freud, wrote to have a big IMPACT. She didn't write to share a story. She wrote to change the world. She was a great advocate for personal liberties, but also encouraged selfishness.
HARD stuff to wade through! I'll have to read "Atlas Shrugged" sometime, and then I'll have a better response!
(You know, I'll feel really silly if Ann Rand didn't write "Atlas Shrugged" and so I've been blathering on about something totally irrelevent!
)
Re: Atlas Shrugged
Yes Rachel it is Ann Rand. She definately writes for impact. What struck me hardest was that the things she got right were so profoundly right it makes oyu scared but the things she got wrong were so utterly and completely wrong it makes you cring.
I woke up last night in a daze realizing that the power of her words almost convinced me that the broken things were true. I prayed after that for reassurance of what was right and felt much better. Charity lost all meaning in her book....Her main objective was to teach that your happiness is not to be swayed by others moral sanctions and to not let yourself be convinced that your morals are wrong. Unfortunatly her idea of achieveing the goal of pure joy and happiness is what she calls selfishness. The problem I saw was that it was NOT selfishness her characters were performing but conviction for there morals and standards(even if not all the standards were right). She had a case of mistaken identity I guess in naming what action her characters were taking.
She put in a great plug for homeschooling though which made me laugh!
What do you call achieving
What do you call achieving pure joy and happiness, if it's not selfishness?
Ah, but there's the rub...
..."wickedness never was happiness"
You can achieve pure joy without achieving it at the expense of others. As a Latter-day Saint, I have been taught that you cannot acheve pure joy and happiness alone; you have to achieve it with your family. And when you learn to uplift and inspire your family, you usually learn to apply those principles to others, as well.
Remembering that I haven't read Rand for a couple of years...I seem to remember that her idea of pure joy was entwined with becoming the best you can be. The same is true, I think, with Christianity. The difference is, Rand thinks that the best you can be is the culimination of your personal desires - to be the best architecht you can aspire to. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to be the best you can become. But in Rand's view, you only have the time until you die to become your best. It is sad to me that she manages to completely reject the communism/socialism she grew up with while accepting the no-God lies that were part of their message.
What good does it do me to be the greatest architecht if no one ever lives in the building? (Yes, I know, I'm mixing in "Fountainhead".) I do not operate in a vacuum, no matter how much I might wish I did. I would be the best mom in the world if I didn't have my kids around to, you know, "make" me lose my temper.