From: Jerry Mitchell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 21:03:02 MST
> 1. "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you
> can do for your
> JFK, roughly quoted, same sentiment, different country. Being
> a bad guy
> (Hitler) doesn't contaminate every word that ever came out of
> your mouth.
To the extent that he belived the mass of people should be able to oppress
an individual, he would be just as guilty.
> >"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves
> and masters. And
> >intends to be the master." (Ayn Rand)
> 2. Probably everyone on this list has read Ayn Rand, and most
> of us have
> probably read just about all of her material. Then we took
> what we could
> learn from it, and moved on, incorporating it into our meme
> That's what I did. I learned a lot from Rand's writing but I
> noticed a key
> thing: She forgot that "no man is an island". Howard Roark
> and John Galt are
> superhuman in their abilities (not to mention their
> companions), but readers
> usually pay that no mind, enamored of the books as they are.
> However it is
> of prime importance to realize that.
I dont take Objectivism as the gosple from St. Rand, I personally hate the
cult of personality that Objectivism has become and I think it sets back
objective philosophy years. Her style of writing was a romantic style,
showing men not as they are, but as they could be. This is the same reason
that action movies are so popular. Superheros are very common in movies,
books, and all forms of entertainment. It was hardly a breach of character
on Rand's part to create them too. What you may have missed from the stories
is the most selfish characters actually caused the greatest leap in the
standard of lifestyle for man. Im not going into the contributions made to
humanity by capitalists, it should be self evident and would take an
enourmous act of deliberate evasion to blank out all the good done by them
(I can offer the increased lifespan as a start, but let me know if we need
to go into personal empowerment like cars, medicine, entertainment, etc...).
> That is the reason that
> a person's
> belief system should NOT be set on a foundation of Rand's
> philosophy. It is
> simply too extreme, putting principles before practicality.
So a philosophy of extreme moderation is the answer? Or can I invalidate a
philosophy too simply by throwing the term "extreme" at it? Whats wrong with
extreme? I want my family to be extremely happy, healthy, and wealthy. I
want my food extreamly free of poison, not just moderately. Extreme is
simply a measurment, not inherantly evil. Dropping the context for what your
discussing, and calling it evil simply because of its measument can get you
in trouble. What if your spouse asked you if you were extremly in love with
them? You know what your answer better be unless you want to be sleeping on
Im just saying that because you disagree with a few things Rand said (as do
I), dont throw out the baby with the bath water.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT