Jump to content

Similarities and differences between Ayn Rand and Rushdoony


Recommended Posts

between Ayn Rand and Rushdoony?

It seems like the writings of one mobilize the secular right and the writings of the other one mobilize the religious right, but I don't know enough about either of them to do a solid comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had conjugal relations and produced the Tea Party :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Choke, cough, cough, thanks, I'm now recovering from nearly spitting Pinot Grigio on my keyboard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a great deal of both authors whom I like much more then their followers. Both wanted to keep their ideas separate from their followers, believing that they were somewhat exploited and corrupted by misinterpretation.

The very short answer is that both were highly opinionated and very sure of themselves and the cogent nature of their systems of belief. Both systems of belief were essentially purist, hard on deviants, hostile to the establishment (be it social, political, or religious), all with a notable degree of self-interest/selfishness, though that elitism was defined and explained in certain ways.

I'll pull out a book that I have that was written about Rand by a researcher who worked on a project for Canadian Broadcasting about Rand who then began to see what he describes as her cultic following. Rushdoony (and Calvin) have the same guru-worship issues as well.

Rand constructed a great deal of myth, and I believe that Rushdoony was also dedicated to the same kind of thing, though the myths were diametrically opposed in nature. Both used the system to essentially exempt themselves from limitations to enjoy their own unbridled version of free willism, though the free will stuff may be more true of Rushdoony's followers than of Rushdoony himself.

So, bottom line is, they each created an authoritarian system, they had a sacred canon of writings and belief, they required painstaking devotion to a rigid belief system, and they both used cruel logic (though I think Rand substituted a great deal of logic with rhetoric to establish her opinion as foundational, though Calvinism and especially the neo-Calvinists who claim Rushdoony do exactly the same thing but claim that they're only following the Reformation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrasting the two --

Rand was once asked by a book salesman to quickly summarize her system of Objectivism. She responded with this, using the basics of how you would describe a philosophical school of thought.

1. metaphysics (in the philosophical sense/the non-tangible nature of reality): objective reality (Brainsample adds: complete rejection of metaphysics)

2. epistemology (knowing): reason

3. ethics: self-interest

4. politics: capitalism

I would also add that she rejected all ideas suggesting that reason is at all or in any way dependent upon presuppositions or prejudice, what I would call just one of the functions of her rugged individualism. I think she goes wrong because her justification for her system which worked toward the end of free society is nearly entirely based on her opinions and preferences as opposed to logic which I why I think she mistook and mischaracterized her preferences and rhetoric as logic. And she was excellent at it. Her basis for a free society was her own take on humanism, and she looked to epistemology last. Traditional philosophy generally starts with epistemology.

In my estimation, I'd say that Rushdoony would respond this way:

1. metaphysics: A function of man because he was created in God's image; metaphysics governed by the Holy Spirit and serves as one of the primary methods by which God communicates with man.

2. epistemology: Starts with Biblical Law and is understood through man's reason which is always going to be somewhat given to error because of man's fallen sin nature. Even the Christian must deal with the flaws in logic because their perceptions will be off because of their limitations, ethically and ontologically.

3. ethics: Biblical Law establishing God's sovereign interests and control

4. politics: Biblical law providing for a free society. (Anyone who claims to believe or justify a free society has borrowed the capital of Christianity in order to do it.)

I could write for hours and make everyone's eyes roll up in their heads, but essentially, I'd say this is as simple as I can make each of their systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the book for anyone who has that much of a morbid interest in Ayn Rand. (Makes me think of an old episode of Futurama where the sewers happen to have a somewhat abundant supply of discarded Ayn Rand books on hand.)

Jeff Walker, "The Ayn Rand Cult" published in '99 by some publisher called Open Court, a division of Carus Publishing Co.

http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Cult-Jef ... 979&sr=1-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.