Of Egos & Thorns: On the Difference Between Ayn Rand & the Apostle Paul


I was younger – much younger – at the time. But the list caught my attention. Quite simply, the question posed, “What is the most influential book you have ever read?”. The results of this purportedly widely-solicited poll gave a list of ten books. The first book, as expected, was The Bible. But the second I had never heard before. It was strangely named Atlas Shrugged by an equally oddly named Ayn Rand. The list continued with To Kill A Mockingbird, a book by Jane Austen (forgive my memory), Catch-22, and Moby Dick among others. Interesting. I set the newspaper down and went about my day. However, in the following weeks, I found myself nagged a bit. I couldn’t get this Ayn Rand book out of my mind. Atlas Shrugged? What was this story all about? Ayn Rand? Was this a man or a woman? How could this book, according to this poll, finish second only to The Bible in influence when I had never heard of it or the author? What better way to answer this question than to read it?

And so I did. All 2.5 lbs and 1200 pages of it. To be honest, I had never read anything like this before. And for a time, I was captivated by it. The story of Dagny Taggert, Hank Reardon and John Galt was an unabashed champion of ambition, self-assertion, unapologetic and hard-edged success. It portrayed its protagonists as steely, unsentimental aspirants and its antagonists as mealy-mouthed, rationalizing saboteurs of their achievement. Needless to say, there was no love lost between the two.

I have to be honest: I was mesmerized. Even though the main characters were icy and somewhat unapproachable, they possessed an admirable singularity in their resolve. They represented unapologetic genius, innovation and determination. Furthermore, they became even more attractive when contrasted with their adversaries. It was the first book I read that at least gave me pause about the manipulators, the craftily entitled, and the professionalized victims that can, at times, claw at those aspiring for great ends.

Now, I know, I know. My literary betters can rightfully point out all the naive traps I have fallen into with my initial admiration of Ayn Rand. Even Flannery O’Connor shames me when she acidly quipped,

“I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get [regarding] fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.”

I know. But, still I was a bit taken. I read The Fountainhead, then Anthem, followed by some of her lesser works. I recommended her to some friends. While I wasn’t endorsing her worldview, I was simply saying she would make you think a bit differently about ambition and its detractors. Perhaps, I began to wonder, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was worthy of the number two spot after all…

Perhaps. But time passed. And life truly began to happen to me. Successes and failures. Small triumphs and galling tragedies. The shine I fancied in myself when young began to tarnish as I recognized my own foibles and shortcomings. I began to realize that the credit I awarded myself for my successes carried with it a rather sizable asterisk. In truth, I was learning that I had more dependence on others for my achievements than I was, at times, willing to admit. Suddenly, Ayn Rand and her cool, autonomous characters seemed a bit hollow to me. And then, I started to read the Apostle Paul.

 Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan,to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

- 2 Corinthians 12: 7-10

For when I am weak, then I am strong. These words sank into me. And I realized just how much Paul spoke to the true human condition in a way that Ayn Rand never could. Paul affirms that we are dignified children of God and yet we are flawed through sin. But that’s not the end of the story. In spite of our sinful shortcomings – shortcomings worthy of just punishment, we have instead mercifully been deemed worthy of redemption. This redemption is offered us through God’s grace. But we best know God’s grace and are most receptive to it when we recognize how far we have fallen and how far He has raised us up. So the narrative Paul tells is one of glory and humiliation, joy and pain, suffering and sweet, incomparable healing. While this brilliant, paradoxical story so readily describes, comports with, illuminates and affirms what we all experience in our daily lives, Ayn Rand’s stories simply and sadly affirm…the ego. In The Fountainhead, without blanching, Rand wrote,

“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men.”


“A man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.”

Over time, as I have grown (and, though it is arguable, matured), Ayn Rand’s stories have increasingly struck me not as valiant tales of independence, but rather as bitter struggles against any form of dependence. Rand’s is a bitter autonomy. We stand on no one’s shoulders, she asserts. We owe nothing but praise to ourselves, she insists. Her unapologetic narrative finds her characters achieving, excelling, conquering and ultimately exulting in…themselves. Curiously, as I consider them now, her most triumphant characters focus sharply on themselves and paradoxically shrink into pathetic, deformed caricatures. They strut as a lost sheep bragging in its freedom, yet remaining lost. Or as the prodigal son boasting that he is untethered, and yet he is empty. Or as the lost coin that is proud and autonomous, yet missing and useless hidden among the dust and filth. Rand’s characters drowning in ego are tragically stripped of their truest dignity. They are one-dimensional figures. As Georges Bernanos might say, they become little more than “stumps of men”. Ah, yes. There you have it. The glorious ego.

And so we find ourselves left with a choice between the ego and the thorn. Do we choose our own will, our own path, our own deified autonomy to lead us to worldly success and ultimately meaningless self-affirming accolades? Or do we choose the thorn of which Paul begs relief from the Lord? The very thorn which causes us to wince, to limp, to stumble and yet reminds us of our utter and glorious dependence on God for assured guidance, redemption and salvation. Which indeed?

The once-proud Paul reflected,

“When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.”

- 1 Corinthian 13:11

 So, too, for me. Sorry, Ayn. I choose the thorn.

Rediscovering The God I Had Forgotten About
Behold the Pierced One: Spending Holy Week with Benedict XVI
"What Have You Done With My People?" - The High Calling of the Church & Cardinal George
My Quaint, Silly, Ridiculous, Little, Lovely, Lovely Faith
  • Teilhard

    Excellent article. I discovered Ayn Rand when I was in college. I was mesmerized with her writings. Unfortunately, looking back I now realized that the effect she had was to prolong my adolescent phase well into my early adulthood.

    It was not until I turned away from Rand’s individualism and back towards Christianity and the reality that all of humanity is connected with each other and all of God’s creation that I began to grow as a person.

  • Sam West

    And I discovered Ayn Rand when I was 34. Four years later having read about a dozen of her books I am happier than I ever was. The world makes sense now.

    I guess it is not surprising that an author of the blog called “A Catholic Thinker” will chose suffering over happiness. You don’t know what a true human condition is because you reject the only means of human knowledge – reason and replace it with faith. And faith will take you wherever your feelings and feelings of those who surround you will go (Islam is a shining example of faith). Faith needs no reference point in reality – faith creates its own reality. Except that reality remains imagined – not real and is continuously crushed by existence and results in pain. It is not that you chose thorns – you chose faith and thorns is a direct inevitable consequence.

    • eddiestardust

      Sam West, If you are correct then what is the harm in trying to give comfort?
      But what if you are wrong? What if there truly is a God, a Heaven and Hell? What if by choosing to care for others that wins us eternal life and choosing not wins eternal darkness?

      • http://objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/ Sword of Apollo

        “Sam West, If you are correct then what is the harm in trying to give comfort?”

        You mean, what is the harm in lying to ourselves about how reality works? There’s a great deal of harm in that. It leads to poverty, misery and destruction, as in Atlas Shrugged and as in the Middle Ages.

        “But what if you are wrong? What if there truly is a God, a Heaven and Hell?”

        What if there’s an invisible fairy queen on Neptune who hates Christianity and will torture the souls of Christians for eternity after death? Don’t you have to consider this possibility?

        “…by choosing to care for others…”

        The moral issue is not about “caring.” Ayn Rand’s heroes care for certain others. The moral issue is self-sacrifice. Is it morally proper for an individual to harm his own life for the alleged benefit of others simply because they are “in need”?

        I recommend this post on the issue of altruism and Christianity: The Wages of Altruism: Domestic Abuse.

        • eddiestardust

          Oh now you are saying that Domestic Abuse results from Christianity? Do you know how stupid that sounds?
          Better find God soon buddy but of course you may get lucky if someone includes you in our list of folks to pray for:) And I will!

          In any event “Sword of Apollo” those of us who are Christian know something that you do not know.
          And just as most of the physical universe is made up of stuff we cannot see, we are in the same way acted upon by the Supernatural that we cannot see either!

          • http://objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/ Sword of Apollo

            “Oh now you are saying that Domestic Abuse results from Christianity? Do you know how stupid that sounds?”

            You don’t really know what I’m saying in that post, because you haven’t read it.

            “…those of us who are Christian know something that you do not know.”

            I have no reason to believe this in the sense in which you mean it. I’d have to see some evidence of your claimed “sixth sense.” (There is some perceptible evidence, after all, of “dark matter” in the way galaxies rotate.)

            “…we are in the same way acted upon by the Supernatural that we cannot see either!”

            “Supernatural” is not a legitimate concept. It designates something that does not have a nature. That is, a something that has no identity and is not anything in particular. The “natural” contrasts not with the “supernatural,” but with the “artificial.” You’re speaking nonsense.

    • Julia Wortham

      Ayn Rand was a miserable wreck in real life. Her philosophy destroyed her and she died a lonely, old woman with no friends or family left. She walked around muttering,”John Galt wouldn’t feel like this.”. Her misery was a mystery to her. Why wasn’t she strong like Dagney Taggart or John Galt? Of course, we know there is a hole inside us all that we can’t fill ouselves. That hole and her inability to fill it by herself drove her to complete despair.

      • JohnDonohue

        Innacurate. Where did you get this?

        • Julia Wortham

          This information isn’t hidden. There have been several books written about Ayn Rand and the train wreck she was behind the scenes. The most well known of them would be “The Passion of Ayn Rand” by Barbara Branden who knew her personally.

          • JohnDonohue

            When you 1) decided to ignore all evidence of Rand’s humanity, generosity and greatness; 2) latch onto someone with an ax to grind; and 3) spout psychologized falsehoods as if pontificating at her trial…

            …did you think no one would challenge your smear of Ayn Rand?

  • jackdoitcrawford

    One evening as I was returning from some event, I stopped in at the firehouse where
    I was a volunteer. It was raining hard and there was a call that someone had
    driven onto a bridge and his car was stopped. The family was alive, but
    stranded in the middle of the bridge. We were supposed to rescue them. I had
    read Ayn Rand and decided to reject self-sacrifice as moral, so I was not
    interested in saving some person who I thought had stupidly put his life
    in danger by driving onto a bridge over a creek that had overflowed onto the
    bridge. I did not go with the truck, and it pulled out without me. About 20
    minutes later, the officer in charge at the scene came on the 2-way radio with
    a very sad voice and asked for more help including an ambulance. To make a long
    story short, two volunteer firemen, untrained in water rescue, had been sent
    out into the swiftly-moving river, one tied to a rope and the other just
    holding on to it. They both lost their footing and drowned. I have no doubt
    that had I gone that night, I would have been one of those who drowned, so I
    credit Ayn Rand’s ideas with literally saving my life. Now at 71, I look back on a life well-lived. I reject the supernatural altogether.

    • jmm1234

      I read the basis for this analogy somewhere, don’t remember where, but here goes. It demonstrates how counter to human nature Ayn Rand’s ethics is.

      A group of people are on the beach. A man is drowning. One person leaps into the water to save him. Another man stands up and says-”That fool shouldn’t have been swimming there. It is not in my rational self-interest to save him; I don’t know him and don’t know if he’s worthy. Besides I have something important to do right now.” The crowd erupts in cheers for this second man. The city gives him a virtue award. The man who jumped in and saved the drowning man is ignored,or, closely questioned on his motivation.

      That would be a strange world indeed.

      • jackdoitcrawford

        Or the drowning man pulls the rescuer under and they both drown.
        They are forgotten by everybody but their loved ones, none of whom know or care about the man who went on to live a long, virtuous life.

  • JohnDonohue

    It is amazing how Zen-like is Christianity. If you let the particulars recede, it sounds like pure Eastern Religion. The essence: contradiction extolled, truth of reality rejected.

    “My power is made perfect in weakness.

    I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships.

    For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

    But the decision to embrace contradiction is to shun reality. Since shunning reality is to shun life, the body/soul of a human revolts. Frankly, God is then needed to 1) make the human condition tolerable; and 2) to save the day after death.

    Makes me wonder: if contradiction (anti-life, pro-suffering) is vaunted here, why would it not also be extolled in heaven?

    • oregon nurse

      Perhaps suffering really isn’t. Perhaps the reality of earth isn’t the real reality. Perhaps the ability to embrace the earthly contradictions prepares us to embrace that ultimate reality. What seems like happiness here, especially the Ayn Rand self absorbed kind, may be anything but in the life to come when perfect knowledge is revealed. Where we spend eternity is a choice and what we do in this life is inexorably leading us to that choice – we are either building a capacity to say yes to living with God in eternity or we’re destroying it. Those who can see no other possiblity in this life of how to define happiness apart from self may have to run screaming and tearing their hair in agony from real happiness in the next. The gates of hell are bolted from the inside where the inmates can contemplate the perfect knowledge of all they lost for eternity.

      • JohnDonohue

        If life on earth is full of actual contradictions, suffering and thorns, why is it the opposite in heaven? Why not simply a continuation?

        And how do you know?

        • oregon nurse

          I believe in the contradictions because that is what Jesus told us was our roadmap to a life of eternal happiness with Him in heaven and it will be radically different than this fallen world. My explanation of eternity is simply my own based on my own synthesis of Catholic teaching. I don’t believe hell is a punishment inflicted by God. I believe it is actually a place of mercy (and justice) for those who were unable in this life to value and embrace the ultimate goods of heaven. Just as people run from the perceived sufferings of selflessness and unconditional love in this life, so I believe they will run from the ultimate joy of it in the next – straight into hell where they understand exactly what they lost but are unable to do anything about it except experience that they willingly chose to separate themselves from it.

          • JohnDonohue

            Well, hell as a mercy, so the apostate can suffer to the max by fully knowing what he/she rejected…yeah…that is the ultimate contradiction.

            Thank God it is only the word of Jesus that tells us this is so.

          • oregon nurse

            I know you don’t care but I want to clear up your misunderstanding. The mercy is the separation from God in heaven. If they had to be subjected against their will to the ‘sufferings’ of pure heavenly love it would be worse punishment, no?

            Imagine making a choice out of pride, like refusing to forgive a hurt caused by a loved one, knowing full well that your decision was going to be a punishment far greater than the humility of forgiving the original offense. But, like a prisoner, you are unable to escape the choice your pride forced on you, knowing that what you thought was your greatest strength was in fact your greatest weakness. That, in the infinite degree, unchangable for all eternity is hell.

            What if the perfect knowledge and pain of every selfish and unloving thing you had ever done and the harm it did you and others was constantly with you for eternity, all because having so proudly lived your life only for yourself you had lost all capacity to bow to another’s forgiveness even to receive perfect bliss. The closest metaphor we have in English is cutting off your nose to spite your face which doesn’t begin to do hell justice. And the REAL pain is knowing the pain of hell was all your own choice. You can’t even hate God, it’s only self-hatred forever. See the contradiction? Self-love in this life leads to self-hatred in the next.

          • JohnDonohue

            “The mercy is the separation from God in heaven. ”

            How is that merciful? You’ve made the claim three times and attempted to explain it, but to no avail.

            As for the rest, the decision to forgive someone is based on a value system. It would be wrong to forgive someone who causes genuine damage (evil) and yes, wrong to not forgive someone you have chosen to value deeply, if the interchange creating the forgivenmess deepens the relationship. That last situation has nothing to do with God.

          • oregon nurse

            Sorry, the answer is there you just don’t see it. To keep explaining won’t help.

          • JohnDonohue

            Yes, I see the contradiction. That is the problem. You are attempting to float a contradiction. Sorry, contradictions are an indication that something is wrong. So check your assumptions leading into your contradiction.

            “Self-love in this life leads to self-hatred in the next” is just a backwards miracle, and miracles are contradictions.

            Sorry, you have not shown where “mercy” comes into this at all.

    • Mike Blackadder

      John, Christianity is not embracing a contradiction. The message of Christianity often turns previous conventional wisdom on its head, but that doesn’t mean it’s untrue or contradictory. Turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, satisfying our humanity through humility and servitude; none of this seems to make sense to the human intellect without reference to God. It comes down to a conviction of our actual nature, an accurate conception of an objective reality; the actual nature of humanity and reality. It seems that if a person imagines their life’s purpose to be a toaster that this will seriously compromise their ability to reach true human fulfillment. We are blessed with a rational mind that leads us to truth, that can discern the wisdom of the gospel. It is not pro-suffering, but asserts that suffering serves a purpose albeit a mysterious one. And you raise a valid point: if it is true that we suffer as part of this world, and that even God suffers then do the angels and saints not also suffer in heaven? How can we find ourselves in actual communion with God unless we also embrace the suffering of God? I don’t think that you can. I think the answer is that suffering is unavoidable everywhere, even in heaven, and if anything it only increases the more we love, and will always be the answer of love so long as there is such a thing as sin.

  • BadMF

    This is a great insight. The thorn allow us to see God’s work in our lives. It also , I think, helps us to sympathize with the weak, and increases our desire to help the weakest.
    The thing that kept me from accepting and trusting Rand as a young person was the portrayal of suffering as a soul suck. Toohey’s niece, Catherine, who worked as a social worker, gave away herself out of idealism, to help others, and the life of the character grew more and more grey, bleak and colorless. It is a stark contrast to the larger than life vigor of the self centered main characters. This portrayal was an outright lie, it taps into the fear people have of giving too much. Luckily I was able to recognize it, though I was a terrible Christian at the time. A philosophy that reduces love to a satisfaction of personal desire, and declares sacrifice to be a tool of manipulation is evil, possibly the exact opposite of Christianity.

    • JohnDonohue

      Catherine was engaged in government social work, not voluntary helping. She did not give herself out of idealism, she was badgered into it by Toohey, who seemed to use her as practice fodder for his indoctrination skills for inducing selflessness.

    • BTP

      Agree that reducing love to satisfaction of desire is really bad. But the declaration that sacrifice is a tool of evil is precisely the gospel: that thing where Pilate gave in to our desire for a sacrifice was pretty bad. Seen as a response to an ideology that constantly demanded human sacrifices — I refer to the Soviet Union, of course — her response actually shares the disdain for sacrifice with the gospel.

      • JohnDonohue

        That is rather astonishing, considering how the entire ethos of Christ on the cross is built on the glory of sacrifice. Can you actually build a case that the gospel disdains sacrifice?

        • BTP

          Well, sure. I think Rene Girard outlines it in his work.

          Basically, the idea is that humans have this problem of needing to find scapegoats; things get giddy from time-to-time and the solution, historically, has been to ascribe blame to some poor bastard and kill him. Thing is, the scapegoat is always, in the pre-Christian culture, guilty. Think of Oedipus, who was clearly guilty of all the things he was supposed to have done. Iphigenia might not have been guilty, per se, but cutting her throat sure fixed the problem with the wind (the later change in the story just shows how much we can’t stand to hear the truth about ourselves). Human sacrifice is our mode of existence together. Sad, but true.

          Anyhow, by the time we get to Jesus we get the same ol’ story. Caiaphas puts it perfectly, “Is it not better that one man should die than that the entire nation perish?” Ah, but if they knew, they wouldn’t have crucified the King of Glory.

          So, the gospel insists that this human proclivity for finding and killing scapegoats — human sacrifice — is not the way to go. Indeed, even the animal substitutes we used were pointless. The gospel hates sacrifices because the greatest crime ever was a human sacrifice.

  • BTP

    I think you’ve explained quite well how Rand’s characters lead to emptiness. Indeed, we can’t be most fully ourselves with Rand’s insistence on only the self. The source of all being is love, not ego.

    Couple additional observations. Rand represents a polar case and should be seen against socialism, the particular evils of which she knew quite well. A Randian dystopia would embrace emptiness as an ideology, for sure, but that ideology would leave room for individuals to create communities. When contrasted with socialist dystopias, which leave no room for anything except the state, I guess I would have a preference.

  • roger

    Excellent. A well stated pearl, reminding us of that which is important in our brief stay on Earth. It is NOT about us.

  • Eve Fisher

    If you notice, there are no children in Rand’s books, no handicapped, no one but the strong and the weak, and the weak deserve what they get. She had no respect for the actual worker – the janitors, maids, teachers, carpenters, farmers, etc. She was above all that. Her ideology was total selfishness – and, to give the devil credit where it’s due, she practiced that in real life. Everyone was there to serve her. And she ended up alone, on government assistance.

    Her work is very adolescent, and appeals to adolescents (including so-called adults who never grew up), who believe they do exist in a state of total independence from everyone else, and are secret geniuses, waiting to be discovered, and while they’re having a tantrum, and telling YOU what’s wrong with YOU, you need to take them to the mall and give them $20, and if you don’t, it’s very selfish of YOU.

    • JohnDonohue

      Nice summary of the untruths about Ayn Rand. Tiresome. Please get new propaganda.

      • Eve Fisher

        Sorry you think it’s propaganda. I’ve read the books, and this is my interpretation of them: they show no charity, humility, mercy, pity, or compassion, because she thought they were all weaknesses. She thought she was a genius, but she was just an adolescent Nietzsche. Nietzsche would have despised her for her philosophical incoherence and obsession with capitalism, i.e., money. (She liked money a lot. She liked power a lot more.) Rand was also obsessed with the Superman – and what she wants from the Superman is summed up in the raw sex of the Fountainhead. He would have despised her for that, too.

        • JohnDonohue

          If by “the books” you mean her four novels, then you are ignoring the compassion in them. If you mean in her life, then you are REALLY ignoring the compassion.

          I will ignore your incorrect opinion of Rand vs Nietzsche, that has been shown to be wrong so many times you can Google it. Nietzsche is the incoherent thinker; Rand’s philosophy is a fully integrated system.

          “Power”? In your reading of The Fountainhead did you pick up Rand’s denunciation of “the man who goes after power,” fully explored in a nuanced main character? Can you even name that character?

          Rand “loves” the productive activity which, in a just society, results in wealth. Do you object to that?

          The sex in The Fountainhead is beautiful, loving and powerful. Sorry you didn’t like it.

          • Eve Fisher

            If you’re a Randian, what are you doing on “A Catholic Thinker” website, other than to troll? What do you expect us to say? She was an atheist, adulterous egomaniac who despised Christianity, despised most people, and whose writings have provided a number of people with a supposedly plausible reason to believe what people always want to believe: that selfishness is right and good. Sorry, I don’t agree with any of your premises, or your interpretations, or your opinions. Bye.

          • JohnDonohue

            1) there is no such thing as a “Randian”;
            2) this author of this piece invoked Ayn Rand, if that is not trolling (mention Ayn Rand, harvest huge clicks) then I am St. Augustine;
            3) your characterization of Ayn Rand is rejected;
            4) Rational self-interest IS good;

          • BT

            How’s it going, Augie?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Rational self-interest is in and of itself irrational. The market alone can’t lead to morality, because price lacks the information density necessary to make good decisions.

      • Guest
        • JohnDonohue

          1) that’s an outrageous price for a kindle book;
          2) no need for me to shoot down that book, plenty of reviews on Amazon did a great job destroying it;
          3) any Christian throwing the ‘cult’ card is tempting the all time record for breaking glass in their own glass house

  • t

    Anyone who reads “Atlas Shrugged” and expects it to be some sort of bible is wrong. The book is fascinating, well-written, and thought-provoking. However, if you are expecting it to guide your life, to apply all aspects of the book to the way you live, that’s your fault. Not hers. Ayn Rand did not prolong your adolescence, you did. It’s silly to blame a book for your own actions.

    • Mike Blackadder

      Exactly my thoughts. Well said!

  • eddiestardust

    I never read Ayn Rand. Apparently it would have been a total waste of time and I’m glad that I never did:)

  • Mike Blackadder

    I would have to agree with the author that Paul presents the more complete standard for humanity, that justice calls for a higher standard than everyone surrendering to self-interest. However, I think this assertion is sort of an irrelevant criticism of Ayn Rand and her work. It’s naïve to see Rand’s characters as an assertion about the completeness of humanity. Perhaps only an adolescent would interpret it that way. At least in the case of Atlas Shrugged which I have read, the story and her characters primarily present an argument about ideology – in particular she challenges a common characterization of those who are ambitious and successful as being the villains of human society.
    I suppose it’s fine to point out the richness of Christian teaching using Rand’s characters as a point of comparison, but you can hardly use Paul to defend what is ignorance about human ingenuity, collectivist ideology or confusion about the manner in which people generate wealth.

  • christinaarcher

    It’s terribly unfortunate, Ayn Rand remained a teenager; an emotional adolescent. She was flattering herself when she called her beliefs a ‘philosophy’. Incoherence is never desirable.

  • BiggerFatterPolitics

    Ayn Rand was not just an atheist but rather the antiChrist. List Of Republican Pedophiles

    Republican are 100′s of times more likely to molest a child than a Catholic priest! Media is given priests a bad rap. Leave the priests alone they are good men and report on the GOP.

    Ayn Rand approved of rape.

    Hoe can Paul Ryan reconcile Jesus and Ayn Rand? He can’t!