03-11-2018, 09:43 AM
Ayn Rand was a godless Russian Jew who escaped the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution and went on to write some of the most-read books in the world. Not a few of them were long-winded; my personal favorite was the succinct novella Anthem. She openly worshiped Aristotle as the alpha and omega of philosophical inquiry, to the point of forming her own life philosophy--"objectivism"--as a direct derivative of his philosophy. There were a great many things she got wrong, but aside from the obvious Western epistemological baggage that comes with her interpretation of individualism that we slice off here at Radix Fidem, she did propose one thing right: a man owes nothing to another regardless of any claims. In other words, one cannot make moral claims on another without their agreement. Moral claims on strangers are, paradoxically, immoral.
As humans we are under a near-compulsory moral obligation: we owe allegiance to blood (family), because that is the inescapable feudal order of human existence. Outside of family, one had no moral obligations to an outside party except through a covenant agreement*. Covenant agreements were no legal contract--they were, in fact, much more serious, because it took precedence over the default "blood" contract one had with his family. The weight of this presumption rests on the family structure seen in feudal, tribal Israel and the general social structure of her surrounding tribes. This presumption is one that Rand, being thoroughly steeped in the Western tradition, would reject. Despite this, reality persists. Family was not only a fact of life, it was someone's entire world; you lived and died by family, which consequently held all the practical and social currency to support someone from life to death. Family is not regarded nearly the same way in America, for example, so "family" in this modern sense comes with some variability on this moral presumption. Yet, this holds true for humanity as a whole. Paul mentioned explicitly that those who do not care for family are no better than the pagans.
Additionally, as Christians, we are obligated to others within our voluntary church structure, as siblings adopted by one father: God. This aspect was particular to the monotheism of ancient Israel, and much more emphasis was placed on adoption in Old Testament feudal Israel than today. An adopted family member was held in higher regard than blood children. In this sense, covenant kin--other Christians within your assembly--should hold a high place in your priority than actual family members.
Outside of kin of blood and covenant, no one else has any legitimate moral claim on you. We may have to make some exceptions in modern society to keep peace, but wider "social responsibility" holds no sway with God in the long run. It's wholly anathema since it presumes Enlightenment philosophy, tracing all the way back to Aristotle and Plato**, a philosophy that we reject. Like the Hebrews of the Old Testament, God designed intended than spiritual covenants are held in higher regard than blood ties. This is reiterated constantly through all adoption analogies we read in the New Testament, with God the Father as the head, and the church as His adopted children.
With the proliferation of the Internet, talk is much cheaper, and so are social media postings, but the sway they hold can be insurmountable on people's real-world lives. Twitter mobs attacking individuals for saying the wrong thing (or thinking the wrong thing, by implication) are condemned under the idea that random, hapless people somehow owe them an apology. Those fanatical mobs won't last, even though they may enjoy temporary social power through digital ostracism.
Again: social responsibilities--in all its characterizations and forms like civic, democratic, liberal or conservative--rests on a idolatrous power structure that God has already condemned. As such, we at Radix Fidem also condemn it. We do not owe anyone a damn thing.
* There were some cultural exceptions to this. For instance, if a stranger-even an enemy--asked for hospitality, the tribal patriarch was obligated to provide it.
** Rand's objectivism, though it may disagree with other philosophies that branched off the ancient Greeks (particularly with political and ethical philosophies), is still another version of the Enlightenment worldview.
As humans we are under a near-compulsory moral obligation: we owe allegiance to blood (family), because that is the inescapable feudal order of human existence. Outside of family, one had no moral obligations to an outside party except through a covenant agreement*. Covenant agreements were no legal contract--they were, in fact, much more serious, because it took precedence over the default "blood" contract one had with his family. The weight of this presumption rests on the family structure seen in feudal, tribal Israel and the general social structure of her surrounding tribes. This presumption is one that Rand, being thoroughly steeped in the Western tradition, would reject. Despite this, reality persists. Family was not only a fact of life, it was someone's entire world; you lived and died by family, which consequently held all the practical and social currency to support someone from life to death. Family is not regarded nearly the same way in America, for example, so "family" in this modern sense comes with some variability on this moral presumption. Yet, this holds true for humanity as a whole. Paul mentioned explicitly that those who do not care for family are no better than the pagans.
Additionally, as Christians, we are obligated to others within our voluntary church structure, as siblings adopted by one father: God. This aspect was particular to the monotheism of ancient Israel, and much more emphasis was placed on adoption in Old Testament feudal Israel than today. An adopted family member was held in higher regard than blood children. In this sense, covenant kin--other Christians within your assembly--should hold a high place in your priority than actual family members.
Outside of kin of blood and covenant, no one else has any legitimate moral claim on you. We may have to make some exceptions in modern society to keep peace, but wider "social responsibility" holds no sway with God in the long run. It's wholly anathema since it presumes Enlightenment philosophy, tracing all the way back to Aristotle and Plato**, a philosophy that we reject. Like the Hebrews of the Old Testament, God designed intended than spiritual covenants are held in higher regard than blood ties. This is reiterated constantly through all adoption analogies we read in the New Testament, with God the Father as the head, and the church as His adopted children.
With the proliferation of the Internet, talk is much cheaper, and so are social media postings, but the sway they hold can be insurmountable on people's real-world lives. Twitter mobs attacking individuals for saying the wrong thing (or thinking the wrong thing, by implication) are condemned under the idea that random, hapless people somehow owe them an apology. Those fanatical mobs won't last, even though they may enjoy temporary social power through digital ostracism.
Again: social responsibilities--in all its characterizations and forms like civic, democratic, liberal or conservative--rests on a idolatrous power structure that God has already condemned. As such, we at Radix Fidem also condemn it. We do not owe anyone a damn thing.
* There were some cultural exceptions to this. For instance, if a stranger-even an enemy--asked for hospitality, the tribal patriarch was obligated to provide it.
** Rand's objectivism, though it may disagree with other philosophies that branched off the ancient Greeks (particularly with political and ethical philosophies), is still another version of the Enlightenment worldview.
