Obivously life begins before the delivery.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/
Posted on 01/05/2005 11:22:24 AM PST by annyokie
I don't think Kant would have agreed on this specific example (he probably would have written some unreadable quibble defining a loophole).
But otherwise you are right - the philosopher cannot control his idea, and the general trend of this analysis, and of the idea of a godless ethics in general, was not a good thing.
Obivously life begins before the delivery.
Well, then we are essentially in agreement. I'll gladly stipulate (and in fact already have) that "Atlas Shrugged" is less than a literary masterpiece; will her ardent critics similarly stipulate that her works, literary warts and all, were widely influential and on balance were beneficial in the fight for personal liberty over the forces of collectivism?
I think Rand has said that she choose to embody her philosphy in a novel instead of an essay because she knew that essays were not widely read, and thus would not have the potential to have the same degree of influence as a novel would.
The validation of her decision lies in the volume of books she sold, and which curiously continue to sell even to this day. The mere fact that this thread even exists, and that the number of people who are on it discussing works that were written some 50 years ago is evidence her novels have a legacy of influence, despite their literary shortcomings.
Now, if we could only get Michael Mann to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a film in a manner similar to the miraculous transformation he made with "Last of the Mohicans" we'd have the best of Rand in an enjoyable and less turgid format.
er, make that "chose".....
Now stop for a moment and imagine the potential success if she had been a good writer ;)
More seriously, I think it's fairly obvious that the reason it winds up on Great Books lists is not because it's a great book - far from it - but rather because many people find the politics underlying it to be appealing. Realistically, you can sum up the whole book as follows:
Dear Reader:
Socialism really sucks, and it's even more insidious than you think it is.
Love,
Ayn
Now, as appealing as that message is, does it really belong on a list of great literature? I think it doesn't, because literary merit is as much about execution - the art of writing - as it is about intent.
"Atlas Shrugged" doesn't have a movie in it I think.
Or it would require a really excellent writer to find one and still deliver the message.
"Fountainhead" is better for that, and the movie wasn't half bad. It could stand a re-make.
"Anthem" is interesting. A real creative fellow could make an interesting and effective animated short out of that one.
"We the Living" had a rather good Italian movie made of it I understand.
"Now stop for a moment and imagine the potential success if she had been a good writer ;) "
Well of course.
Best novels ? No.
Influential books ? Absolutely.
Required reading long into the future ? Probably, and spare some compassion for all those who will get them on the reading list, as we must for those given "A Critique of Pure Reason" or "Being and Nothingness".
This doen't mean that I didn't benefit from exposure to it as a kid, but it certainly isn't on any book list of mine.
Ok, and thanks for the clarification.
Frankly, (heh heh) I am so intensely hostile to Rand that I try hard to keep the full facts straight about her and her life. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was true; how they DID meet and marry is rather a mystery to me.
My own sense is that, as you document well in your small excerpt, she was an utter fruit cake, EXACTLY like K. Marx. And she, like Marx's Dad, was satisfied with her given name .... nope, had to change the name she did, like so many other authors of books that 'change the world'.
I always look at the following: first, did they have a strong dad. Typcial authors like Rand, Hemingway, Marx ... even Frost, it goes on and on ... had a weak/absent Dad, a Fatherless void if you will. Thus the groundwork is laid for totalitarianism.
Then, the wife and kids or husband .... so much ground so much data. Marx and how he treated his daughters, all 3 of which who killed themselves (and did marx ever acknowledge the bastard son from the housemaid? nope, and in fact never even SPOKE to him ... tsk tsk Karl, protector of the proletariat), Hemingway and his shotgun (the letters from Hemingway's Mom to Earnest ... yeeeeechhh!!, Frost and the son who killed himself (Frost: 'every path I took failed with him ...'), and of course Rand and her antipathy to Christian marriage.
The key to so much of 'Modern' thinking doesn't actually live with the so called left. It lives alive in the 'right', the Randians. They are the new Darwinists, but they would hotly deny this.
"...when Rand learned that the economist Murray Rothbard's wife, Joey, was a devout Christian, she all but ordered that if Joey did not see the light and become an atheist in six months, Rothbard, who was an agnostic, must divorce her."
That quote says it all. Atlas Shugged and the Fountainhead bundled together in one quote. Thanks for the excerpt.
The two books ("THE FOUNTAINHEAD" and "ATLAS SHRUGGED"),which Chambers is critiquing in this article,were written less than 60 to 70 years ago...which is what you found "wondrous",that were were talking about them 60-70 years later.Go read the article,your posts,and then do the math...omitting,of course, any and all of the works not included in the article.
You,YOU,after listing a litany of things,then said that you were going to go into things not "complimentary",inferring that the above list,one of which things was that Rand was an atheist,WERE complimentary! If you can't keep track of what you post,that isn't my problem.
I brought up the size of "LES MISERABLES",whilst talking to another poster,in part to show,that even as a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD,the length of a book did NOT put me off,nor keep me from finishing it! You only see what you want to see,don't you? Try reading what is actually written;for a change. LOL
Yes,"ANTHEM" is a wee book;both in length and merit.
Worry about yourself,your projection problem is becoming more and more evident.
Yes,BINGO,for once you've got it...by George,I think you got it! I TRIED to read "THE FOUNTAINHEAD" and "ATLAS SHRUGGED",but both are so badly written,so boring,so tedious,and so tortured,that I decided to NOT finish either one of them and instead,read something of better quality.IIRC,that was about when I next ran through all of the works of Sinclair Lewis,Upton Sinclair,Gibbons' "DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE",and a raft of other books,besides what I had to read from school...all of which was read three years plus,after my having read All of Hugo's works.
Rather than my bringing you up to speed on Chambers,I suggest that you do that for yourself;if you are able.
Maybe YOU really,really,REALLY should read you own posts;with someone to help you do so,of course. :-)
For many it is when the fetus breathes on its own outside the womb.
That is the basis for Roe vs Wade is it not?
No one is denying that the fetus is alive and that it is a potential human being.
5.56mm
Bookmarking ... also looking for link later. Thanks!
Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzsche.
I wonder whether she even read Aristotle. There seems to be very little Aristotelean influence on her thought.
I hear twilight zone music .... look how far apart in time our two posts were!!
Most atheists apply their reductionism selectively. Rand was no different. In this case, she set aside traditional sexual morality for her benefit.
Otherwise, she was the most dogmatic of moralizers. Her dogmatic teaching touched upon every significant aspect of human life.
When you examine the most influential philosophical minds in history, there is a strong correlation between personal morality and philosophical beliefs.
Moral people make good philosophers, and vice versa.
Rand speaks of axioms and ideas. Rand is also a materialist. So how would she define an idea? Is it a group of atoms?
I've read a lot of her books, and this is one of many, many insurmountable problems arising from her various dogmatic beliefs that she simply never addresses.
Tell that to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Ayn Rand was no St. Thomas
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.