So you think that money is the root of all evil?

Atlas Shrruged ^

[EternalVigilance]

Whether it says "the root of all evil" or "all sorts of evil" etc. is a lesser distinction which I have seen debated when it comes to to other scriptures as well, and probably can be easily resolved by looking at the original langauge.

My study of the original Common Greek of the New Testament leads me to the conclusion that the 'root of all sorts of evil' interpretation is the correct one.

Of course, that puts this whole thread and it's arguments into a wholly different light.

Besides, it's only common sense. Money is an inanimate object, with no moral nature whatsoever. It's all in what you do with it. A hammer can be used to beat somebody's head in, but it can also be used to build a house...such is the nature of the material things of this world.

As Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render to God what is God's."

Money is neither evil intrinsically, nor good. It's all in the choices we make in how we use it.

EV

[He Rides A White Horse]

.......but just to clarify something for you eddie............he won't be kneeling before Nietzsche or Rand. Hope you understand that.

[Age of Reason]

Somebody wrote a book about Rand being a cult?

I'm not the only one who thinks this?

[2Trievers]

The Ayn Rand Cult

[He Rides A White Horse]

I didn't think so......I'll guess you were merely demonstrating that same type of high handed arrogance that characterizes so many of Rand's followers.

[Age of Reason]

Rand detested cults.

Reminds me of that Monty Python movie, "The Life of Brian," wherein the hero says to the adoring mob, "You must all think for yourselves"--the mob replies by chanting, "Yes, yes, we must all think for ourselves."

[Kevin Curry]

Ayn Rand died a bitter, nasty-tempered, self-important, meddlesome old bat. If her life was an example of the kind life that objectivism produces, one would be wise to run from it as fast as possible.

[Prodigal Son]

Good question. The way I see it, Rand was portraying her characters as men of ability drowning in a world of collectivism and collectivist ideals. This is done as a device to demonstrate John Galt as Liberator/Savior. Every character's importance in the novel is tailor made to relate to John Galt (and what he represents) in a particular way. Dagny is a special character because she is also the love interest for the protagonist (and everyone else too for that matter). So Rand needs to demonstrate how in her view love can be totally bad (with Rearden's relationship with his own wife), 'almost but not quite' (Dagny and Hank, Dagny and Francisco) and 'finally liberated'- Dagny and Galt- again John Galt the liberating force.

But in my opinion, this was somewhat poorly done in Atlas Shrugged with the personal relationships. I felt like she demonstrated her own limited scope by not having an alternate love interest for Rearden and Francisco. They are left hanging in the end yet she portrays them as looking on with glowing admiration as Galt and Dagny have the happy ending.

I have often wondered if she would have portrayed her character's love interests differently if she had written Atlas Shrugged after her breakup with Nathaniel Branden and how much her affair with him influenced the love lives of those characters (she was seeing him while she wrote it).

There's another couple of criticisms I have of the book and one is her treatment of Eddie Willers in the end. This reinforces the argument that Illbay has made that in Rand's world the men of ability get the world as a prize- the little guy gets the shaft. Eddie Willers deserved more than what he got in the novel- he deserved to "go to the promised land" as well. He was ever the faithful sidekick, admirer, confidant, friend and servant and I was really dissappointed with what she left him with.

It is a bit difficult to argue that Objectivism was a philosophy designed for men (in the general sense). Rand's views weren't designed for mass consumption or the masses would have devoured them by now. It is true that it is actually only a small percentage of mankind that provides the real innovation that drives mankind forward and her philosophy is aimed almost exclusively at that small percentage. But I don't see how Man can properly be uplifted without lifting up Mankind as a whole. Likewise, if you are in the philosophy business but your philosophy isn't aimed at mankind but man, one shouldn't complain if mankind doesn't find it to its taste.

It is implicit in her novels that the masses are the victim of faulty ideology taught to them by the collectivist elite. But this implies, obviously (imho) that the intellectual has a responsibility to make a philosophy "attainable" for the masses or forever forfeit the role of "educating the common man" to those collectivist elites. In other words, if she is that smart and her ideas are that correct- it should have been possible to have put it in a simpler form that more people would have found attractive. A self evident truth is exactly that- self evident. I'm a little bit of the opinion that it is a bit disingenuous to start from position A- "All you masses are a bunch of collectivist rabble who just don't know any better", then to proceed to B- "Here- this is the truth, don't you get it?" and wind up with C- "You don't get it? Well you're all a bunch of collectivist rabble who refuse to see the truth". You're not going to convert a lot of heathens like that.

[Prodigal Son]

LOL, now that you mention it, that fits pretty well doesn't it?

[185JHP]

Excellent post. The "hippies of the (less government) right" - the 'tarians - think they've discovered something new - that greed and selfishness can lead to behavior that is pleasureable. It's a very old and thoroughly disreputable idea. And there's never been a 'tarian society.

[eddie willers]

He was ever the faithful sidekick, admirer, confidant, friend and servant and I was really dissappointed with what she left him with.

I never understood that either.... but he did go down with the ship and I (obviously) admired him.

[Illbay]

And there's never been a 'tarian society.

The French Republic following the French Revolution is considered to be the best example. And it quickly degenerated into "the Terror," as the 'tarians decided they needed to "get even" with all those enemies of the people.

But it started with aristocrats and ended up with shop-girls and chimney sweeps. Once the Libertines get on a role, their innate meanness takes over. Just witness their charm and verve on any of the Libertine threads we have on FR.

[He Rides A White Horse]

He was ever the faithful sidekick, admirer, confidant, friend and servant and I was really dissappointed with what she left him with.

My guess is that the emotionally frigid, self centered egoist Rand would call him a "sucker".

[Illbay]

I'm not going to bother with a quote. YOU read it. Anyone who isn't a "captain of industry" or "giant among men" is just fodder for the mill of the superior.

Her intense worship of self breeds such contempt. It's innate, and it's the reason people like you always come off sounding like Nazis ("Silence, Schweinhund"!)

[eddie willers]

And if I told you that he was a good, blameless man that had to be sacrificed, you'd just tell me that she was stealing from that other book again. : )

[Prodigal Son]

I never understood that either.... but he did go down with the ship and I (obviously) admired him.

Yeah, I did too. I find I learn a lot more about Rand by discussing her books than I did when I read them. It's interesting to see what other people got out of them and what criticisms they bring to bear on them. I find myself reflecting a lot on the subject after one of these threads and I think that has been the greatest prize in her works for me- the thought provoking nature of her ideas. One thing that always strikes me is how old the novels start to be (literally timewise) and yet how they are debated just as heatedly as when they were first written.

Ach well, been a long night- it's a little after 6AM here and I think I'll turn in for a bit and check this thread out again later.

[185JHP]

French Rev, huh? Their "let's have a ten day week, instead of a 7 day week" idea sounds sappy enough to be the work of a 'tarian mind. Didn't work too well... FReegards

[Jason Kauppinen]

No Illbay, you're the one sounding like a Nazi by 1) Not being able to back up your ludicrous claims, and 2) Automatically assuming that anyone who disagrees with said ludicrous claims must be an uncritical Rand-robot cultist follower. As far as telling you to shut up; it was the second of two choices. The first being, putting it more succinctly, put up. So again, since you obviously have such a clear understanding of whatever Rand was advocating, prove your claim. Or not. If Rand's writings were merely the product of an irrational cultist weirdo, then a direct quote shouldn't be too hard to find, now, should it? Since you are so obviously not an irrational whacko; a simple task like producing evidence to support a claim shouldn't be that difficult. The fact that the burden of proof lies with the person making the argument is pretty basic as well and probably not beyond your understanding either. But, perhaps, you're not interested in making an argument. Perhaps you just want to slander a writer you disagree with and post distortions and outright fabrications of their work. I'm sure the Nazis used similar tactics within their propiganda.

[Jason Kauppinen]

You wrote: "He was ever the faithful sidekick, admirer, confidant, friend and servant"

That describes my family dog pretty well too. :P

Then you continued with: "and I was really dissappointed with what she left him with."

Did the character Eddie Willers deserve to get taken along to that pie on the ground valley where most of Rand's other hero's ended up? Remember what happens to him at the very end of the book train he's riding on stops, and he basically falls apart at that point. Remember the caravan of people that ride up to him later and offer him a place with them? But he refuses.... he just can let go of whatever attachment he has to the train he was riding on and start moving under his own power. That, I think, is the one and only flaw that this character had. I think that this character was written that way on purpose in order to display it fully. Maybe Rand did a bad job though. She was probably trying to do what Shakespeare did with Hamlet, and that character's flaw of thinking things through too much.

[Illbay]

1) Not being able to back up your ludicrous claims,...

What's to back up? The books are there. Most people not absolutely mesmerized by Rand's silly adolescent cant, think the same way I do--someone else gave "Eddie Willers" in Atlas Shrugged as a good example.

If you're too immature to take criticism of that which you profess, why are you on FR?

... and 2) Automatically assuming that anyone who disagrees with said ludicrous claims must be an uncritical Rand-robot cultist follower.

Actually, YOU'RE the only one that I assume that regarding, based on your "shut up!" comment.