Posted on 07/22/2002 4:31:37 PM PDT by dubyagee
I agree 'good' doesn't come from reason! But our consciences are not good enough either - for we are all tempted to do bad things! Christ taught that we need God to overcome that tendency.
Please do pardon me. I clarified myself in an earlier post. I could see someone using her beliefs to justify murder, just as they do with God.(How awful to eat one's words!)
I would have never thought you could condense the book to mini-series length until I listed to Atlas Shrugged on tape.
It is around 9 hours long and definitely does justice to the book.
Wasn't absurd! We have many desires (to gossip, to have sex, to commit adultery, to be prideful) which do not emanate from reason!
Thank you for that explanation. How clever of Rand...
The Bible says as much in as little words.
Either you accept the existence of God (and good and bad) outside of ourselves, or you make up your own definitions of good and bad. But again, the use of reason, without God, can lead to Rand, Hitler, Stalin, or anything at all - depending on what your desires are.
Lilian Rearden: Hillary Clinton
Elsworth Toohey: Peter Jennings
Howard Roark: Tom Hanks
I think it's important to understand that Rand was influenced by the German philosopher, Nietzsche. Granted, Rand's "political philosophy" was certainly not as deep, nor as influential, but it's widely accepted that she was influenced by him. There are important differences, of course, but there are certain key elements that are important.
One of those elements concerns Rand's critique of religion and so-called altruistic morality. Selfishness, in this view, is not evil, but only as good or bad as the selfish individual. And as for altruism? It doesn't exist. As Nietzsche said, "there are no selfless acts" at all!"
Why? Because the altruist is motivated by fear and by the need for others to think well of him. His vanity knows no bounds. He imagines himself as suffering along with those he wishes to help (he is motivated by fear), and he buys himself a good reputation with his fellows and flatters his vanity by his alleged "selfless" acts. Altruism is just as brutally selfish as anything else, but as a form of morality it is far less honest.
Of course, in Rand's view the altruist does not decrease suffering. On the contrary, the altruist increases suffering and misery, and he robs individuals of their humanity by placing the blame for their suffering on those who are not responsible. The altruist is shameless, has no respect for the tragic, is far more vain than most can imagine.
I have to say that after decades of altruistic government the results speak for themselves.
I didn't see anyone else point this out to you, if they have, please forgive the redundancy.
For Ayn Rand, man's soul is his consciousness, particularly that consciousness unique to man, the rational/volitional consciousness, the conscious ability to think and choose.
If you attempt to make the word soul mean anything more than this in Ayn Rand's mouth (or pen), you have misinterpreted her.
(I will gladly provide quotes from her writings to substantiate this, if you like. Most people familiar with Ayn Rand are quite familiar with her position on this.)
Hank
Many would say that to love your enemies is completely irrational. Stalin and Mao (as well as most other people in this world) thought and think so.
That kind of sophistication is present in all her main characters, and even many minor ones. Each has a specific philosophical problem, and it affects his role in life, and of course in the novel. Each is carefully drawn to illustrate her philosophical principles. The gradual education of Henry Reardon is wonderfully handled. The fall of Dr. Stoddard is also wonderful, and grim.
There's a lot to be gained from actually mapping each character and his approach to problems. Rand did an enormous amount of work in creating characters, but it's very abstract. The book requires a lot of work to understand its subtleties.
Guns, NASCAR, Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter's looks, marijuana, cats, the evil of the Clintons.....
With Rand, it was "my way or the highway." You could agree with her 98% of the time but because you might disagree with her 2% of the time, then she would consider you scum of the earth. BTW, her earlier novels were much better than her later ones where she just slammed you over and over again with her philosophy.
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.