Posted on 05/11/2013 12:12:17 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
I used the term ‘god’ simply because it far better describes the way Rand’s followers view her. They eschew the realities of Rand, in favor of post mortem romantic visions.
Only an intellectual imbecile would draw that conclusion after reading my posts on this thread. Thanks for proving you've never read NOR COMPREHENDED anything Ayn Rand has ever written.
Buh-bye now.
Your post to me was in support of the socialists that I decried.
You seem to be most confused!
Lewis was a much deeper thinker than Rand.
Her philosophy boils down to a version of utilitarianism.
I read about seven of her books. She claimed to be a disciple of Aristotle, but I don’t remember any evidence that she read him.
“I used the term ‘god’ simply because it far better describes the way Rand’s followers view her. They eschew the realities of Rand, in favor of post mortem romantic visions.”
In post #155, if I understand you correctly, you inferred that Rand was a Marxist. Here is a reality of Rand for you.. There was nothing in this world that she detested more than Marxism. She was born in Russia and witnessed first hand the evils of Marxism.
-— Why did God wait so long to send humans (and only humans) a savior? -—
You could perform an experiment, and ask Him.
If He doesn’t answer, it won’t be because He doesn’t exist. It might be because He doesn’t think you need to know.
I do not believe in engaging idiots or fools, so this is my last post to you.
You are an idiot and a fool.
You challenge me for disparaging the wealth-born socialists, and then set up a fools circus to deny that you did so.
I didn’t refer to Rand as anything but an admirer of the class to which she belonged.
She never praised socialism, but she admired the capacity of the wealth-born socialists to go it on their own terms.
“She never praised socialism, but she admired the capacity of the wealth-born socialists to go it on their own terms.”
That is about as contradictory a statement that I have ever seen.
I really think that you have a deep seeded resentment for wealth. As usconservative mentioned, you sound like a “occupy wall street” idiot. And like him, I am done with arguing with you.
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.” Francisco from Atlas Shrugged
Good day.
Oh, I agree completely.
However, that is also true of her philosophy.
No. Her philosophy is not a caricature. You may disagree with it; but I suggest you don't really know it if "Atlas Shrugged" is your only guide.
She wrote dozens of non-fiction books and essays which much more clearly explained Objectivism.
She made a lot of enemies unnecessarily and wound up alienating as much as educating with Atlas Shrugged. She needed more subtlety and refinement to her philosophy and how she presented it.
Oh, I will never defend Ayn Rand's tactics nor her chaotic personal life. I just find much to admire in her defense of reason. Great thinkers often don't live up to their own standards. Their thoughts are still worth considering.
Well, I would suggest that when thousands [or millions] of individuals recognize a cause that is valuable to them personally and join with other thousands or millions of individuals, great things can happen. But it all starts with the individual.
In either case, being ordered into a duty against one's self interest is entirely antithetical to Rand's highest moral purpose which is the achievment of one's own happiness.
Wow. You really do have a warped impression of her philosophy. If a man desires liberty but must go to war to defend it or regain it, then the fact of being put in harm's way is not against his self interest.
Really, your understanding of Rand is inaccurate and, actually, pretty insulting.
And in a Randian Army a few of them are going to have to be generals and colonels and order, force, compel the privates into situations directly contradictory to their self-interest. Rand is very clear about her thoughts regarding the notion of a "common good," and yet no nation or community without such a concept will be able to effectively defend itself when tested.
"If a man desires liberty but must go to war to defend it or regain it, then the fact of being put in harm's way is not against his self interest."
That would be well and good if men fought wars by and for themselves. They are very well free to do so, but they sure won't win them that way. Even the buck private who goes to war for liberty must be willing to surrender his if he is to be part of a greater unit that carries the fight to an enemy. At some point, the choice as to whether or not to risk his life is taken away from him, and you have what Randians refer to as compulsory sacrifice or forced altruism. Now, that individual can make the choice to not join the military, which if enough folks decide likewise, leads the society undefended...unless of course you conscript people and we know the liberterian view on that.
Really? Let's take a look at Rand's own words and how they would apply in a military context:
"Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or public—be defined and achieved."
I would call the defense of a nation a public good. Can we agree on that? Yet, by virtue of it's being, no military that does not suspend or at least modify the individual rights of its servicemembers will be able to maintain the order and discipline necessary to perform its mission. Subordinates must follow orders of their superiors, even if it is in direct hazard to that subordinate's personal interests (and often life).
"Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort."
A military leader must frequently place his mission above the the good of his individual soldiers. That's just the way it is.
"And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible."
Nope. Sometimes the sum total of a collective effort is greater than it's individual parts. My understanding of Rand may be, "inaccurate and, actually, pretty insulting," but I would contend that Rand's understanding of reality is much the same.
But Rand didn't write in a "military context". Do you think that a military context is an accurate description of everyday morality? Aren't you searching for holes in her philosophy?
Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Just think you're over-analyzing her.
Sounds like love. Looking forward to the movie. Debra Winger and Anthony Hopkins, again?
Nope. Just human history.
"Aren't you searching for holes in her philosophy?"
I don't really think of confronting the blatantly obvious as a "search."
"Just think you're over-analyzing her."
And I think she over-extends her arguments re: altruisim, self-sacrifice and the common good to the extreme. I understand what she's trying to say, and all these things should, in every day matters of charity, revolve around the individual's free decisions. Where she falls down is her absolutist approach towards the concept of a "duty to others." First, as a Christian, I have a duty to my fellow man. Not to give them all my money, or my labor, certainly, but a duty nonetheless. One needn't be a Christian, strictly speaking to recognize this. If one really wants to understand the things strongly independent men can accomplish when they recognize and commit to an ideal greater than themselves and their own personal interests, one need only read the lines:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
What made that pledge effective is that the men who took it held to it even when it was no longer in their personal interests to do so.
[The content weight of all the Bibles and Korans on Earth is nothing compared to the weight of scientific truth about evolution found in modern technical publications.]
God created all scientific truths.
Ayn Rand is running a hotdog stand. One day the Dalai Lama patronizes her establishment. Rand says “I know, I know, make you one with everything.”
The Dalai Lama replies, “No, no. I don’t want a hotdog. I just wanted to tell you that if Roark had been a Buddhist, he would have meditated and found peace, instead of doing stuff like committing rape and dynamiting buildings.”
Rand says, “Sure. I bet I could have sold a hundred copies.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.