"Christianity answers: the stranger’s need has a claim on you."
You can put it that way if you like, but that's not the way I would characterize it - specifically it's the word "claim" that I object to. I see it more as a responsibility of each of us than a claim by any of us. That may be semantics, because I can't really defend the difference as meaningful, other than the direction of each perspective. Each necessarily implies the other.
I'm not a Rand acolyte, but I do think she makes some important points. One is her emphasis on logic, and the exhortation to "Check your premises". Too many arguments are made without clearly stating the premises on which they rest even before getting to whether the argument itself is logically valid (which is certainly important too, obviously).
The other is that her philosophy rests on the concept of individual responsibility.
Christianity also rests on that concept, contrary to the Left's characterization of social responsibility as primary. The story of the Good Samaritan arose out of the question "who is my neighbour?", which itself arose out of the commandment to love our neighbour as ourself (as an addendum to the answer of the question "what is the greatest commandment?"). Not that our neighbour had the right to be loved, or could claim our love, but that we ought to love. Our love is a responsibility that derives from God loving us first, without our doing anything (or being capable of anything) to justify God's love.
Our individual responsibility is also implied in the sheep vs. goats separation. We are judged as individuals according to our individual behaviour. Also, the expectation of our asking for God's forgiveness for our sins is for the act of an individual.
I see Rand's philosophy as a corruption of our individual responsibility, similar to other corruptions of natural desires and needs (e.g. lust, gluttony, greed).
But her books are still helpful to understand that we do still all have individual responsibility, even as a grounded reader should be able to see through the problems with them. (The light of a cigarette as a symbol of the light of genius was probably the most egregious to me.) Unfortunately, not all readers are grounded. Nor are all her points without merit.
Just curious, have you read any of Rand's books right through? Which ones?
Yes — I’ve read The Fountainhead from beginning to end, half of Atlas Shrugged, and the core Objectivist essays in detail and in meditation. My critique doesn’t come from distance. It comes from engagement.
My own premise — the axiom of The Vertical Dispatch — is the priority of the absolute: the Eternal truth of goodness and beauty. That is the standard against which I measure any system, Rand’s included.
On the “claim vs. responsibility” point: I don’t think the disagreement is really about semantics. Christianity frames the stranger’s need as a call upon the self because the self is already grounded in something prior — the love of God. Rand grounds the self in the self. That is the divergence. One begins with the Eternal; the other begins with the individual. From that starting point, the moral logic unfolds in two very different directions.
I agree that Rand’s emphasis on checking premises is valuable. But when I check hers against the axiom of the absolute, the system collapses at the point where it denies any obligation that does not originate in the self. That is where Christianity and Objectivism part ways, and why I read Rand as a brilliant but incomplete thinker — powerful on agency, thin on the sacred.
In the Katha Upanishad, Yama gives Nachiketa the teaching that sits at the heart of all non‑dual traditions:
śreyaḥ — the path of joy, the good, the eternal
preyaḥ — the path of desire, the pleasant, the transient
Every human choice is a fork between these two.
And the Upanishad is explicit:
Joy (śreyaḥ) is chosen by the one who is centered in the Self, the Absolute.
Desire (preyaḥ) is chosen by the one who is uncentered, pulled outward by the senses.
The sacred is the center.
The profane is the circumference.
When the sacred is absent, the individual becomes centrifugal — spinning outward, seeking grounding in responsibility, logic, ethics, systems, doctrines… anything that can substitute for the missing center.
That’s what you sensed in the reply you received:
a moral argument built entirely on preyaḥ — the path of desire disguised as duty.
Not desire in the crude sense, but desire in the Upanishadic sense:
"Christianity answers: the stranger’s need has a claim on you."
You can put it that way if you like, but that's not the way I would characterize it - specifically it's the word "claim" that I object to. I see it more as a responsibility of each of us than a claim by any of us. That may be semantics, because I can't really defend the difference as meaningful, other than the direction of each perspective. Each necessarily implies the other.
I'm not a Rand acolyte, but I do think she makes some important points. One is her emphasis on logic, and the exhortation to "Check your premises". Too many arguments are made without clearly stating the premises on which they rest even before getting to whether the argument itself is logically valid (which is certainly important too, obviously).
The other is that her philosophy rests on the concept of individual responsibility.
Christianity also rests on that concept, contrary to the Left's characterization of social responsibility as primary. The story of the Good Samaritan arose out of the question "who is my neighbour?", which itself arose out of the commandment to love our neighbour as ourself (as an addendum to the answer of the question "what is the greatest commandment?"). Not that our neighbour had the right to be loved, or could claim our love, but that we ought to love. Our love is a responsibility that derives from God loving us first, without our doing anything (or being capable of anything) to justify God's love.
Our individual responsibility is also implied in the sheep vs. goats separation. We are judged as individuals according to our individual behaviour. Also, the expectation of our asking for God's forgiveness for our sins is for the act of an individual.
I see Rand's philosophy as a corruption of our individual responsibility, similar to other corruptions of natural desires and needs (e.g. lust, gluttony, greed).
But her books are still helpful to understand that we do still all have individual responsibility, even as a grounded reader should be able to see through the problems with them. (The light of a cigarette as a symbol of the light of genius was probably the most egregious to me.) Unfortunately, not all readers are grounded. Nor are all her points without merit.
Just curious, have you read any of Rand's books right through? Which ones?
Yes — I’ve read The Fountainhead from beginning to end, half of Atlas Shrugged, and the core Objectivist essays in detail and in meditation. My critique doesn’t come from distance. It comes from engagement.
My own premise — the axiom of The Vertical Dispatch — is the priority of the absolute: the Eternal truth of goodness and beauty. That is the standard against which I measure any system, Rand’s included.
On the “claim vs. responsibility” point: I don’t think the disagreement is really about semantics. Christianity frames the stranger’s need as a call upon the self because the self is already grounded in something prior — the love of God. Rand grounds the self in the self. That is the divergence. One begins with the Eternal; the other begins with the individual. From that starting point, the moral logic unfolds in two very different directions.
I agree that Rand’s emphasis on checking premises is valuable. But when I check hers against the axiom of the absolute, the system collapses at the point where it denies any obligation that does not originate in the self. That is where Christianity and Objectivism part ways, and why I read Rand as a brilliant but incomplete thinker — powerful on agency, thin on the sacred.
THE TWO PATHS — UPANISHADIC AXIS
In the Katha Upanishad, Yama gives Nachiketa the teaching that sits at the heart of all non‑dual traditions:
śreyaḥ — the path of joy, the good, the eternal
preyaḥ — the path of desire, the pleasant, the transient
Every human choice is a fork between these two.
And the Upanishad is explicit:
Joy (śreyaḥ) is chosen by the one who is centered in the Self, the Absolute.
Desire (preyaḥ) is chosen by the one who is uncentered, pulled outward by the senses.
The sacred is the center.
The profane is the circumference.
When the sacred is absent, the individual becomes centrifugal — spinning outward, seeking grounding in responsibility, logic, ethics, systems, doctrines… anything that can substitute for the missing center.
That’s what you sensed in the reply you received:
a moral argument built entirely on preyaḥ — the path of desire disguised as duty.
Not desire in the crude sense, but desire in the Upanishadic sense:
the self trying to generate its own grounding.