Atlas Shrugged-Contradictions Where None Can Exist(VANITY)

dubyagee

[parsifal]

I got mad at Dagny for leaving poor old Eddie Willers out there in the slop the way she did. What a b*tch! parsy the kind-hearted.

[BADROTOFINGER]

What is utopian about Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead (the only 2 Rand books I have read)?...JFK

[yendu bwam]

I think that goodness is about working in our own self interest...JFK

Well, you're entitled to your belief. But everyone defines self-interest differently. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot defined it very differently from Gandhi and Mother Teresa. So in the end, does your definition mean anything?

[Sacajaweau]

Try the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanual Kant. It's a tough read but worth it.

Sac

[Frapster]

Could you explain what the "morality of God" is? How are you supposed to know what it is?

The same way we know what Rand's ideas are - they are communicated to us.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

There you go. Now you are talking about serious philosophy.

[dubyagee]

Rand makes you think, she overwhelms you, especially at that age..makes you question a lot of what you've been taught to date.......

I agree! I would not recommend my children read this at their age. I'm old enough to know better! (35). My opinions are formed and can only be sharpened at this point...

[Old philosopher]

Indeed many contradictions exist in Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

Having said that, a great deal of what she portrays in her novel has truly come to pass. Remember that this novel was originally published in the mid 1950's, and since that time much of the conditions she portrayed have come to pass. We do have the "looters" today, those that think they are entitled to the fruits of someone elses productivity. Witness the outcry when attempts have been made to eliminate lifetime "Welfare Clients". Witness also the professional "Bleeding Hearts" who would have us provide cradle to grave care for those too lazy to work, or those who offer no productivity to society.

Consider the fact that since Atlas Shrugged was published, our tax burden has increased to a figure approaching 50% of what we earn for the fruits of our labor. I do not have figures handy for the 1950's but if my memory serves me correctly our tax burden then was only about 25%, perhaps less.

Consider also, that in the time since Atlas Shrugged was written and published in the 50's we have lost more of our liberty and feedoms than in any period since this country was founded. Indeed,in the last year and a half we have lost more of our freedoms than in any 10 years in the history of this country.

I, like you, do not agree with Rand as far as religous philosophy is concerned. But if you read the novel for the deep lying philosophy as to the direction this country is taking with it's "Diversity" and PC attitudes, you will realize that Ayn Rand was pretty good at forecasting the future.

The underlying warning as I see it is, as I have said many times, "We have more to fear from our own government than we have to fear from any 'Terrorists' from the outside". Our worst enemies are esconced in Washington, DC, in the White House, The Capitol Building and the SCOTUS Building.
Our freedoms are under attack from all of these sources, and, unless the trend is reversed in the next few years, this country has not long to survive as a World Power.

I make a case for neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, there are a very few politicians in either party whose actions are really determined by what is good for the Country. Most of our current Politicians are dishonest, concerned only in their own power and prestige, and, if scrutinized closely would be considered Traitors according to the Constitutional definition of Treason.

I suggest that you take what is good from Ayn Rand's philosophy and discard the rest. That is what I have done.

That's my opinion

[stylin_geek]

Ah yes, the Catcher in the Rye, the most over-hyped piece of twaddle ever passed of as literature. Ellsworth Toohey would have been proud of this Gallant Gallstone of a modern classic.

[lelio]

A pedophile likes to have sex with kids.... Neither needs to emply rationality to understand those desires
I think you missed out on some of the quote that you put up, mainly:
"To know one's own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: rationality."
What's the cost of a man having sex with a child? The child's life is ruined. The man doesn't grow emotionally.
What's the meaning that the pedophile is missing? That he can't relate to the opposite (or same) sex and has to use his physical force to impose his desires on others.

[narby]

It's an awfully hard thing to do, to defend Christianity with logic. The first question I would ask is, do you honestly believe that if you had been born in Islamabad, you would think the same way?

But you took a good shot at it though.

[another cricket]

Could you explain what the "morality of God" is?

Love and honor God. That which is disagreeable to you do not to another. The rest is commentary. Of course, this presumes rational people who would rather not be stolen from or cheated on , or lied about or murdered.

a.cricket

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

That's because all the libertarians are afraid to go too deep...

(now, I'm just egging them on ... sort of)

[dubyagee]

I wondered myself what the situation would have been had Reardon had a child with Lillian.

[stylin_geek]

of = off...oops.

[Villiany_Inc]

Barbie - it is very long, and tiresome some to read at times, but overall an EXCELLENT BOOK.
Although, I must admit that I didnt read so much into it as everyone else here... I looked at it as merely the evils of socialism vs. the righteousness of capitalism/hard work.

Suggest "We The Living" by Rand as well.
Although, Im sure some will disagree with this as well. (Especially the promiscuity of Rands female leads characters.)

[Lev]

Third, Rand does not believe that men are made up of nothing more than chemical reactions, but that they have a soul. ... If reason overrides all superstition, how can she make the claim that a man is more than what meets the eye?

I believe by soul she meant mind or conscience. I don't think she claimed that a man is more than what meets the eye. Quite the opposite:

The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshiping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man's mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man's metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man's right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man's proper existence, by the 'unaided' power of their intellect.
-- Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual

[dubyagee]

I got mad at Dagny for leaving poor old Eddie Willers out there in the slop the way she did. What a b*tch! parsy the kind-hearted.

No kidding! I wondered about that too! I guess when they rebuilt the nation, they'd pick him up on the way across...(grin).

[RobRoy]

>>What causes man to become irrational? <<

Among other things, narcissism. I believe that most evil things done by men have been RATIONALized in his or her mind. We always think we know best and only break the rules when circumstances "justify" breaking the rules. We all do it to some degree. Some just cross the line (Hitler comes to mind).

[stylin_geek]

In Ayn Rand's writings outside of Atlas Shrugged" and The Fountainhead she makes it clear she stayed away from the subject of children, because as she said, she had no real knowledge of children or raising children.