Abba Paphnutius said, “Every lapse or calamity which takes place, whether through the tongue, some feeling, or some action, or through the whole body, takes place in proportion to the measure of one’s pride, and by the permission of God.”
William, a brief reply. The comment from G. Alan Braun touches on the difference: what do each of Rand and Christianity mean by the term "happiness"? Rand's is a selfish definition. I have lived such a life, and harmed others when doing so - not considering that the harm to others was of importance. In other words, the same view as held by many of Rand's "heroes."
The Latin for happiness is "beatitudo." It is better translated as fulfillment, and better understood as fulfillment through other-regarding action. In other words, love. It is worth noting that we have come to recognize the first portion of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount as "the Beatitudes." Read those verses and compare these to Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." This will make clear how diametrically opposed to each other are the two meanings of happiness. (If you have not done so, check my writing on these verses; see the bibliography tab at the top of this page.)
BTW, I have come to find that this Christian understanding of happiness, "other regarding action," as necessary for any possibility of natural law ethics and the necessity for this ethic for liberty to exist, let alone thrive. I have written extensively on this at my other blog - see here:
I have, however, held on to something from Rand, something she expressed very well: there are those in society who live only to oppress us and use us as their means for their ends. In other words, she identified evil in this world. It's just that her solution, or remedy, only introduces more evil.
I know from The Bionic Mosquito that you have much familiarity with, if not respect for, Ayn Rand. As you know, Rand sees her philosophy as quite at odds with Christian charity. I am eager to hear your articulation on what appears to you to be the defect(s) in Rand's advocacy of pride and the reasons for preferring the virtue of humility. As a starter, I think it safe to say that both the Objectivist and the Christian desire happiness. Philosophy or Revelation as the guide to happiness? Or do you think something like Aquinas's take on Aristotle indicates a common ground between theology and philosophy, apart from the shared interest in happiness?
What is happiness? Is there a universal definition approved by God? (Consider 1 Timothy 6, particularly the role of godliness and contentment.) Rand wrote as a reaction to the disincentives of Bolshevik communism while living in a society in which individuals could advance through merit. Would her words have had any gravitas prior to the Industrial Revolution? In epochs in which the majority were subsistence farmers? The more that I study history, the more I understand that we live in a bubble in which individuals have rights that have traditionally been reserved for the ruling class. Yet, even in the absence of plenty, sin could abound, and happiness as well.
William, a brief reply. The comment from G. Alan Braun touches on the difference: what do each of Rand and Christianity mean by the term "happiness"? Rand's is a selfish definition. I have lived such a life, and harmed others when doing so - not considering that the harm to others was of importance. In other words, the same view as held by many of Rand's "heroes."
The Latin for happiness is "beatitudo." It is better translated as fulfillment, and better understood as fulfillment through other-regarding action. In other words, love. It is worth noting that we have come to recognize the first portion of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount as "the Beatitudes." Read those verses and compare these to Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." This will make clear how diametrically opposed to each other are the two meanings of happiness. (If you have not done so, check my writing on these verses; see the bibliography tab at the top of this page.)
BTW, I have come to find that this Christian understanding of happiness, "other regarding action," as necessary for any possibility of natural law ethics and the necessity for this ethic for liberty to exist, let alone thrive. I have written extensively on this at my other blog - see here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/the-book.html
I have, however, held on to something from Rand, something she expressed very well: there are those in society who live only to oppress us and use us as their means for their ends. In other words, she identified evil in this world. It's just that her solution, or remedy, only introduces more evil.
I know from The Bionic Mosquito that you have much familiarity with, if not respect for, Ayn Rand. As you know, Rand sees her philosophy as quite at odds with Christian charity. I am eager to hear your articulation on what appears to you to be the defect(s) in Rand's advocacy of pride and the reasons for preferring the virtue of humility. As a starter, I think it safe to say that both the Objectivist and the Christian desire happiness. Philosophy or Revelation as the guide to happiness? Or do you think something like Aquinas's take on Aristotle indicates a common ground between theology and philosophy, apart from the shared interest in happiness?
William, I replied by neglected to reply directly to you. See my reply in the comments.
What is happiness? Is there a universal definition approved by God? (Consider 1 Timothy 6, particularly the role of godliness and contentment.) Rand wrote as a reaction to the disincentives of Bolshevik communism while living in a society in which individuals could advance through merit. Would her words have had any gravitas prior to the Industrial Revolution? In epochs in which the majority were subsistence farmers? The more that I study history, the more I understand that we live in a bubble in which individuals have rights that have traditionally been reserved for the ruling class. Yet, even in the absence of plenty, sin could abound, and happiness as well.