Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: balls
If the quote were changed to: "man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others against his will" would that be more acceptable? I think that is the meaning implied in the book.

Well, no ... Rand was very clear about it. She meant exactly what she said: every man is an end in himself.

Your attempt to modify her statement is actually quite instructive: if you ever start trying to dissect Rand's statements, you always seem to end up adding those little "implied" modifications that are necessary to get around the logical difficulties of her claims.

Remember: Rand basically claimed that her "Objectivist" principles were essentially "natural laws." The need to infer such "implied" modifications to her claims is a very serious problem.

It eventually ends up in one of two places: either you decide to accept Rand's basic premises on faith; or you give up on Rand altogether. I chose the latter route.

149 posted on 03/16/2009 2:19:14 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb

When I read the book it seemed as though she was repeatedly describing my thoughts for as long as I can remember - at least since I was two! The sex stuff was a bit much, but otherwise she speaks for me, very precisely. Accordingly, I am comfortable saying that she would laud anybody who loves living for their children, as I do (and would not confuse it with altruism, which is evil). The fact that she was childless is imaterial.


158 posted on 03/16/2009 6:44:46 PM PDT by balls (I have seen the enemy and it is Hussein 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson