- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Congrats!
derful Life, and I don't really agree with George
Bailey's decision to sacrifice his ambition and stay
there in that town for people who apparently didn't
have enough sense to decide to maintain an in-
dependent organization on their own. But to
travesty Atlas Shrugged by deforming it and
mixing it into a kind of hybridization with its
opposite seems sickening to me.--I read Galt's
speech before I read the rest of the book and
it was far from "yawn-inducing" to me. But
that's the kind of thing people would say who
don't have any other argument to fall back on.
My procedure would be to first identify the enemy and then shoot him dead. I certainly abhor the idea of killing someone by mistake.
No, I did not check Ranter's business in the Marketplace. Actually, I have never yet "gone" to the Marketplace. My interest here is exclusively exploring and understanding Objectivism and debating ideas. Narrow-minded!
Stay well!
Maritimus
To make a case for libel, you have to show that the subject intentionally misrepresented material fact and damaged the name of the individual as a result. The author's own disclaimer on the front as a rebuttal and the fact that philosophy by its nature is subjective are going to make intentional misrepresentation a tough sell. You also have to look at the number of people affected (audience size) by the book to look at Rand more negatively than they did before. Can you see where this is going?
You're completely entitled to your "righteous indignation" over the matter, but it ultimately comes down to one opinion vs another. If you really want to "get back at" this author, just ignore his book.
"The only part of Objectivism that I see as incompatible with Christianity is atheism, ..."
If you truly believe that, the you and I cannot possibly have anything in common, other than being bipods walking on Earth.
I had enough.
You sound to me as if you have never heard of the concept of risk.
Apparently, I misunderstood you. Taken as wholes, Christianity, communism (a.k.a. socialism) and Objectivism, could not be more incompatible. Any comparisons of them without going down all the way to their fundamental principles is a job done incompetently, in my opinion.
I encounter here a fair number of people who maintain Christian beliefs and also claim to subscribe to the Objectivist philosophy. I think that they are torn by feeling some guilt for sensing the appeal for Objectivism, while unable to or afraid to draw the conclusions that their reason suggests. If one has been raised Christian means, I think, having been exposed to a, more or less conscious, long training in feeling guilty. I accept that there is a wide spectrum among various denominations and subsets within those. Still, I think, the claim withstands scrutiny.
Finding the "similarities", for some people, alleviates the guilt.
Have a great day!
Load more comments...