Posted on 08/15/2012 7:36:04 AM PDT by John W
Ayn Rand was an atheist.
Not any more.
Paul likes Thomas Aquinas more so than he likes Ayn Rand:
“I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.”
“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.
Idiocracy...
And Milton Friedman was an agnostic. That does not lessen my respect of his economic theories.
Cher? Really? I thought she died a long time ago. (Oh, but maybe she’s been so tucked, lifted, tightened and so on that she’s simply unrecognizable.)
One would be a muslim?
According to who?
I would venture a guess that most atheists believe 2+2=4, and in doing so I agree with them wholeheartedly. Yet, while they may hit upon certain aspects of truth, their very belief system is self limiting.
I don't recall in which which book CS Lewis discussed the matter, but he confronted somebody who asked him about the "truths" that may be found in belief systems other than Christianity.
Lewis likened it to an archaelogical dig. If one starts to unearth a site, and finds a a grainery, a mill and a bakery and properly identifies them as such, they have uncovered a truth and reality: this was a grainery, a mill and a bakery. All evidence is that they were a grainery, a mill and a bakery and any theory or notion otherwise can be easily refuted. One can boldy assert these are what they are with absolute confidence. However, any assumptions or extraplations above and beyond the limited "truth" will almost certainly be flawed. For example, to conclude these were the work of a peaceful, agrarian people based on the identification of a grainery, a mill and a bakery would lead one to a very flawed understanding when further excavation reveals that these were merely the logistic support for an extensive, heavily fortified and armed military training camp.
Lewis contends that Christianity offers the holistic, comprehensive "truth", and that while other belief systems may uncover elements of it here and there, Christianity alone reveals it in its entirety.
I think it's a good analogy for Rand, who hit a few key things dead on, but made a few flawed leaps in stringing them together.
According to who?
Nancy Pelosi hears voices and has magic shoes.
“If they disagree with the Quran they are heresy, if they agree with the Quran they are superfluous - let them burn.”
Cher looks like Nancy Pisslosi in drag.
What does Cher and rely tampons have in common?
They are both stuck up cun*s.
Cher, who looks like the Octomom, is releasing her new album soon, first in 11 years. Seconds until it bombs, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, ...........
When her daughter butchered her body to become a “man”, Cher went off the deep end. She is projecting all her disappointment, confusion and fury onto conservatives.
She needs to come to grips with her suppressed guilt and shame over her daughter’s mental illness. She’s going to drive herself crazy with her rage.
Cher realizes that gays make up her fanbase, so she’s just going along with what they want.
Ryan said he admired her ideas about limited government, but that his overall philosophy is more in line with that of Thomas Aquinas.
Was she ever a guest on “Donnie and Marie”?
Rep. Paul Ryan: No. I really enjoyed her novels, Atlas Shrugged in particular. It triggered my interest in economics. That's where I got into studying economics. That's why I wanted to study the whole field of economics.
I later in life learned about what her philosophy was, it's called Objectivism. It's something that I completely disagree with. It's an atheistic philosophy. But I think what she's done is she's showed -- she came from communism. She showed how the pitfalls of socialism can hurt the economy, can hurt people, families and individuals and that to me was very compelling novels. Which says freedom, free enterprise, liberty is so much better than totalitarianism and socialism. Those novels, I thought were interesting. But her philosophy, which is different, is something I just don't agree with.
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.