- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- 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
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Is this "writer" SERIOUS!?
I cannot understand why anyone would twist the message to promote something that is the antithesis to anything Ayn Rand ever wrote or or believed. I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Well, that started off the day on a very irrational note. I need more coffee.
I need a drink and it's still morning!!
Good response.
Thank you. :-)
I clicked the something and as bars swept by I read "the computer may restart several times before it is fixed."
I'm drinking my second cup when I think, ya know, the PC really did start in the first place.
I'm on my third cup and reading a book before the screen when I'm told the fix is successful.
Not one restart was required.
I get yet another cup and begin to read a news story on my home page when my anti-virus protection gets activated. I click a "click here" to restart my PC. Virus says bye.
Then I go to the Gulch and read the article here.
Sheesh!
Well, I'm a Gulch misfit who believes in God and I'm asking--Lord, why me today?
(I'm trying to be funny. Let's not balloon the mole hill here).
Jan
Is Murphy an Ayn Rand character?
No.
Audie Murphy?
Whoa! Murphy's Law! LOL!
I have not thought of that for some time.
My take on it is that while Jesus' life was the absolute height of the definition of agape love. It is a level of selflessness unattainable by man and honestly not a desirable goal. Yes, we should try to help out our fellow man though never to the serious detriment of ourselves. Mostly the byproducts of our self serving choices are what is so helpful to those around us.
@E,
Teach the man how to fish. Don't give him fish.
meant the WATER "that's really deep man".
And he is America's future? Lord help us!
Congrats!
Guess that really made an impression since I'm 68 and I heard that while in college.
Oh, good little Catholic me did give until it hurt when the collection plate was passed.
I realized shortly thereafter that all I got out of that was a personal hardship.
I think when one gives of his own free will it should be because he really feels moved to do so and if he can afford it.
Wandering Protestant me visited a Methodist Church last Palm Sunday. Gave $20 that did not hurt.
Think I'll just watch "Killing Jesus" for Easter.
Cesar passes my spell checker.
But so does Caesar as in Julius Caesar and all the other Caesars..
You're killing me!
Serious and yet so comical.
I like your style!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDEkeH2x...
More than just shrugging, John Galt invented his own little paradise to move to. If Jesus is to be believed, then he went to his own paradise as well. Interestingly, both John Galt and Jesus laid out ground rules for us getting to their own paradises. John Galt made selective invitations. Jesus made a general invitation, but realized that most would never accept it given the terms of the agreement.
Jesus did, however, mean for his retreat to be permanent.
Escaping to a permanent, isolated Gulch and excluding interaction with all others is not an Objectivist community's best interest or workable solution (excepting individuals).
Jesus's retreat sounds like advocating for suicide since thats the only way of reaching it, i.e. death.
Robbie's point was that the economy is diverse enough now that tearing down a few cornerstones like the leading steel, railroad, coal, and car manufacturers would be insufficient to bring down the looter/moocher society enough to cause a collapse. On that point, I think Robbie is probably correct.
Escaping to a permanent, isolated Gulch is in no one's best interest in the long term, but the waiting time for the complete collapse of societies as broad as America's is likely too long for most of us. That is why AS was 1162 pages. Just when you thought that the collapse just had to happen, it wouldn't, and the collapse would be superseded by yet another fiasco.
As for advocating suicide, that was not Jesus' message at all. Rightly or wrongly, he viewed this life as a temporary stop on a much longer life journey. He said that "his kingdom was not of this world". That is impossible to ascertain unequivocally at this point. He wanted his followers to experience "life to the fullest"; that is not suicide.
You can't even count on our own kids growing up to agree with us, for instance, despite our teaching them our values. I think this is one of the most salient points of Robert Gore's The Golden Pinnacle in the character of one of the Durand sons.
Objectivism does have an inherent issue that makes it rather challenging, but far from impossible, from a governing standpoint. Even people who agree on almost everything are constantly running into disagreements at a much higher rate than do other governing styles.
Robbie's argument about there being too many of the evil ones is a reasonable one against an "open borders" Atlantis. His argument is a variant of Rush Limbaugh's famous "undeniable truth of life": "Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force." In general, other than perhaps for a couple of very brief periods in American history and probably nowhere else in world history, Rush's statement is correct. This is the primary reason why it is entirely reasonable to shrug and start a relatively exclusive Atlantis microsociety now. It is also why people came to America in the first place as well.
My interpretation was Gulch residents had to take the Oath, but did not have to have high quantifiable production, although the main characters did.
Two years ago I stopped at a McDonald's. A middle-aged woman sweeping the floors went out of her way to help me. Everything she did exuded alacrity. I told her I really appreciated her help. She said she was glad, and she was doing it because she wanted to. Something bad happened in her life, she said, and now she gets joy out of doing good honest job helping people in simple ways for honest money. I got the idea she living at the top echelon of her own life, creating a little value, and not asking for anyone else's value, so many people like her would populate the Gulch.
Didn't everyone need to be invited?
This makes me want to read it again because I don't remember if it ever said the basis on which they invited people. I assumed it was demonstrated willingness to follow the Oath. I assumed the main characters were leaders of industry just as on Star Trek most stories focus on the senior staff.
I have read that one of the pieces of evidence for Jesus' actual existence is considered to be that Christian philosophy was so extremely dissonant with respect to its time and culture: The argument is that there must have been a successful, charismatic, single point origin for this movement.
The same, of course, can be said of John Galt.
Jan
As for what this has to do with Galt's message, the start of the thread was with regard to Galt Shrugged and Jesus Wept. Both are completely rational responses to a society that is completely messed up. The other reasonable responses include righteous indignation and moving to remedy the things that are wrong with that culture by both conventional and unconventional means. Interestingly, both Jesus and John Galt expressed righteous indignation and moved to change their respective cultures by quite unconventional means. While their world views and their premises were completely different, one can make a strong argument that Galt and Jesus had more in common than most Objectivists would care to admit.
One major difference between Galt and Jesus is that Galt's friends saved Galt from a torturous death, while Jesus' supposed friends abandoned him to a torturous death. This is one of Objectivism's strongest arguments against Christianity.
One possible response to a completely messed up is "to grin and bear it" in the hope that some day things will change for the better. I will call this the Dagny approach. I used to see this as a rational response, but the society is now too far gone for me to still see that as rational.
But your last sentence tells me that you're getting there j. Congratulations.
Beautifully stated.
Example: Writing a new "Star Wars"-themed book is illegal unless you are Kevin Anderson or have explicit written permission from George Lucas. However, you can refer to Star Wars figures in a book of your own (like say Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files" series) as part of popular culture, even to the extent of rewording your sentences to sound like Master Yoda.
What this author is doing, however, is actually re-writing the original story from his perspective and casting it as a "rebuttal". This is a true grey area - because one the one hand the characters from "Atlas Shrugged" can be argued to be a part of popular culture (especially after three movies) and therefore subject to a much more lenient reading of copyright infringement. On the other hand, it can be claimed that he is only trying to piggyback on the fame of Atlas Shrugged in order to make money for himself - which most courts frown on.
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.
It deals with some of the most fundamental issues of christianity and faith.
The issue here is whether revealed truth that has nothing to say about the universe is antithetical to Objectivism. My thought is if the "truths" have nothing to say about the real world, they're neither consistent with nor contrary to Objectivism. They're unrelated, like our personal likes and dislikes... as long as they don't venture into scientifically falsifiable claims.
Does this notion of God demanding only rational self-interest require major re-interpretation of the Bible? Clearly, there are many Christians who see God as laying down laws and punishing those who don't obey. Is yours a minority view among Christians?
Keep in mind the FULL context of that scripture. Ask yourself "Why are you "denying yourself" TODAY to follow?" Answer is in verse 25. Because you are looking out for YOURSELF and the future, and your inheritance. Rational Self Interest. This within the context means I am willing to sacrifice today for a larger reward in the future.
We do this with finances. We sacrifice today's pleasure for tomorrow's investment growth. The Ant sacrificed his immediate pleasure to store up[ food for the winter. Rational self interest. The grasshopper did not excersise rational self interest since he took his immediate pleasure then starved in the winter.
epidemiological: Reason vs faith
ethics: scientific ethics based on rational self interest vs altruism
Thank you. Sometimes I think that when a person prays maybe they are praying to the best within themselves.
I am sorry about your Mom. How wonderful that you were able to be with her.
I use the word atheist to describe this not knowing because agnostic can mean the assertion that the question is unknowable.
I don't believe in God as I don't believe the FSM, although I can't prove a negative.
I've heard this sometimes called "weak" atheism, i.e. I'm just not asserting anything about God.
If you took a simple lighter back to the 5th century BC you would be called a sorcerer, i.e. mystic.
My understanding is that God, or Creator, of "Intelligent Designer" is beyond us like we are to an amoeba. Nothing mystic to me at all.
If they did where did they get their from?
They weren't religious, so I don't know where they got theirs from.
Morality always seemed logical and life-affirming to me.
Edit: clarity
+10
I am and have drawn many parallels between them showing they are not at odds with each other as some would propose.
But drawing a parallel, and showing similarities is not now, nor ever is interpretation and to suggest so, is not "reasonable."
You say that as a conclusion and I objected. If you select skillfully, communist ideology and Christianity look "similar" too.
I just had in mind the care to avoid revealing obvious contradictions.
Did you not notice my qualifier "If you select skillfully..."? My point in that conversation was to counter somebody else claiming closeness between Christianity and Objectivism.
Isn't it obvious that when you pick and choose you can make things look quite different than when objectively comparing them in their wholes? Since I thank that it is obvious, I conclude that you are having an ulterior motive when distorting in that manner. Thus, we talk passed each other, which, to me, is a waste of time and lacks proper integrity.
Goodbye!
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!
"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.
Communism is all about the collective dictating to you your actions and productivity and personal wealth. Diametrically opposed. Karl Marx said about communism. "Communism can be summed up in one Sentence. Abolition of Private Property."
The Bible in more place than I can count talks about you owning the product of your labor, Opposite of Communism.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
Christianity, and religion in general, and Objectivism share certain ethical values, such as honesty, integrity, non-initiation of force, the work ethic, voluntary cooperation, benevolence. But the Christian willingness for self-sacrifice puts it diametrically opposite to Objectivism. Rand defined it as never sacrificing a greater value to a lesser value (a basic principle of economics as well). A mother risking her life to save her child is acting on that premise; the child is a great value to her. Even in the animal kingdom one can see such seeming alruism to preserve the young. That is not self-sacrifice but the DNA's most selfish function of preserving the next generation.
Christianity's preoccupation with self-sacrifice is rooted in the notion that because Jesus allegedly sacrificed himself and thus saved the whole human race from eternal damnation, we all should emulate him. This is a misguided and distorted version of the idea of investment, and builds this perverse narrative of a God who demands sacrifices as symbols of worshipping him.
On the continuum from sadism to masochism, you couldn't find a better implementation than what Christian beliefs, or rather its developers, have concocted. Objectively, for people to be happy, no one should be made to suffer. No one should derive benefits from the loss of another. No sacrifices need to be laid on anyone. Intelligent, self-interested collaboration can achieve a good and dynamic, life-loving world.
Short-term delay of gratification for long-term gain is not sacrifice. It is in one's long-range rational self-interest, the investment principle.
As for finding overlaps of any two thought systems or even any two apparently mutually exclusive ideas, I invented a fun game played on those lines. It is a veritable lab experiment in concept formation and rationalization. Ask for details if interested.
Altruism is not a Biblical concept, but a concept created by lazy people trying to shame the productive people into parting with their hard earned product without fair exchange of value.
I will go straight to the Greek word used in the passage you are referring to. Also keep in mind that the Greek had 6 different words for love, each with a very distinct meaning, unlike English where the word love means many things.
Matthew 5:43
hkousate oti erreqh agaphseiV ton plhsion sou kai mishseiV ton ecqron sou
This is the word used for love (agaphseiV )
a command for "tender solicitude" to more than one person.
Tender solicitude is a sincere care or concern, as for the well-being of another.
Psychologists will all tell you that "forgiveness" is for YOU not so much for the other person. When you harbor ill will, these feelings will eat at you making you a miserable person.
To "love" your enemy is to bear them no ill will, hence freeing yourself to focus on your own joy and happiness.
Isn't that a rational self interest? In other words "let it go." In the end this person, i.e. enemy may one day become your friend. I know I have had this happen to me personally. I had a neighbor, who was a royal jackass. While I did not associate with him, I also did not make it a point to wish him ill will. He got sick, and NOBODY came to visit. My wife and I took him some soup, and he became no longer a jackass to me, and we became friends, not best friends, but friends enough to help each other once in a while, loan tools back and forth and so on.
Keep in mind that the Bible in numerous scriptures talks about private property and YOUR rights and right to own the product of your labor. Communism again is the Abolition of Private property.
Back to your comment Love your enemy is NOT altruistic, since I am not sacrificing myself or my happiness in favor of another. I am not making myself a slave in loving my enemy in the term being used, bearing no ill-will, or having a concern for their well being.
Also here are some other Greek words for love.
Eros: Romantic love, (Wife, Husband, Girlfriend)
Agape: Empathy, care or concern, as for the well-being of another, . A·gaʹpe, however, is not without feeling but can be warm and intense, like military brothers or fraternity brothers, or club members.
Philia: a deep friendship
Ludus,: playful love
Pragma: longstanding love
Philautia: love of the self
I have the feeling that your definition of "enemy" is different than mine. My enemies are German soldiers in WWII who shot 200 of prominent us for every one of their soldiers that resistance killed. My enemy is the Islamist who wants to blow up my business, invade my home and kill my family. I want to completely focus, on cold-bloodedly, effectively and efficiently destroying him. I do not want any emotional distraction to cause me to make a mistaken move and risk failure.
To equate your royal jackass with my enemy is nonsensical.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century.[13][14] The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 CE), as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps "translated") them as best he could."[15][Notes 1] On the surface, this has been taken to imply that Matthew's Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[16][13] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[15] The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.[17]"
After having "lived" in three languages, for years in each, I have a keen sense of uncertainty of translation. In accurate thinking, the careful and agreed upon definitions of many terms are crucial. Way too many translators take poetic liberties.
In conclusion, if your quote is authentic expression of the original Christian thought, then I have to tell you that I feel no "tender solicitude" for the enemies I mentioned. I do believe that that feeling toward enemy would be altruistic. I see nothing rationally in my self-interest to feel that way toward my enemies. Perhaps that is a glimpse of the feeling of guilt that Christianity tries to excite in people who do not obey the teachings. I do not feel that guilt. Sorry.
This is already too long. I conclude that we are talking passed each other because we have different concepts which end up described by the same words. Regrettable, but a very frequent problem. This is not a proper place to sort out the numerous details involved in the misunderstanding.
You sound to me as if you have never heard of the concept of risk.
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
My procedure would be to first identify the enemy and then shoot him dead. I certainly abhor the idea of killing someone by mistake.
It strikes me as simply a fear of death and a search for immortality.
Sounds like the 'morrow' to me.
Or is it your contention that in this VAST massive huge universe we as humans are the only intelligent, or as some seem to imply the Most intelligent beings in the entire universe, or dimensions?
I don't worry about or plan ahead past my death, though if I could extend my life for more years of experiences and knowledge, I would. But I will not waste a moment of this precious life on thoughts of some form of continuation past life with a super-being. And I would like to show the way to this philosophy and way of living to others such that they don't have to waste a micro-second of their lives trying to understand things of faith, magic, and superstition, or be swayed into ways of belief and living that diminishes their freedom and liberty to be happy, through teachings and propaganda about some nonsense afterlife and the super-being's rules to be followed in order to get there.
Personally, I think there is other life and I wonder what the knowledge will do to our society and culture when/if such is discovered.
Hubris.
Just like I cannot PROVE God exists since I cannot have him just walk up and tap them on the shoulder, likewise they cannot prove he does not exist. Scientists cannot prove Gravity either and there is always much debate on Gravity. You cannot see it or touch it, but if you jump off a 10 story building you certainly feel and see the effect of this invisible force.
What science or any other discipline can't do is prove the concept, interactions, or predictions of effects of what is known as a god.
Before moving it, I have to follow certain steps, one is to understand the nature of this application. We hired a JAVA/J2EE expert to work with us. He would get no place by approaching this from a standpoint of how the code evolved into being. He has to reverse engineer it by asking how it was programmed and developed. Only after this is reverse engineered assuming somebody actually programmed it, even though we do not know who did, there is no documentation, and just like God other than the fact that the code exists, we have to assume "SOMEBODY" wrote it and we need to "decode" it and ask questions like, why does it connect here, and why is this code sending data there?.
Hence maybe science is asking the wrong questions from the wrong point of view.
I imagine the answer is you think, "What could he have been thinking here when he called this function." If your assumption that a thinking mind wrote the code is correct, this line of thinking could be productive.
But if you're examining something unlike Java code that may not have been created by a mind, the assumption can lead you in the wrong direction.
Thanks for the chance to ask religious/theological questions I would avoid working on a project I'm involved with.
"Religion, being concerned with the spiritual rather than the physical"--I thought religion teaches how to and how you must live in this physical world. I don't think I've ever met or talked to one that's religious that doesn't talk about this physical universe, even claiming that their god(s) created this physical world and controls everything that has and will happen here.
I for one, don't agree that AR misinterpreted Christianity based upon it's history and current applications as well as those that utilize it to justify/excuse their drive for socialism and collectivism. She talked about the religion, not necessarily the individual.
I would add that you do not only want to retain a valuable employee in a competitive market, you will look ahead and support - for example - a trade school for welders in your area so that you will (in the future) have a pool of well-trained future employees among which to choose. Part of the problem with both the observation and the truth of capitalism is that folks are measured by 'next quarters earnings'.
The capitalists who genuinely look ahead can be mistaken for altruists. While I am not personally religious, I do think that one of the things that believers bring to the discussion tends to be a longer viewpoint (albeit not a supernatural one, from my perspective). If someone who has Randist values (plus religion) proclaims themselves an Objectivist then I, who am no purist, will not dispute their personal choice and label; I find their viewpoints useful. Perhaps this is just using religious people as a 'tool'. Oh well.
Jan
Original sin was a great invention; clever way of requiring obedience to clergy...
I agree with what you say. You have more self control than I do - I just ramble on and on and on.
Jan
Jan, had to look it up
What is a FAIR wage?
Whatever is agreed to by the two parties involved. "period"
Since there is NO forced labor in the united states a "fair" wage is whatever you agree voluntarily to work for. You don't want to work for min. wage at McDonalds, then develop some skills, but if you work for McDonalds it is because YOU applied, interviewed, KNOW what the wage is and accept the offer. All voluntary.
I see nothing wrong with that. The employee always has the invidisual freedomt to hit the library (usually 100% free) and build some new skills where he/she can demand a higher salary.
The employee is every bit in an "equal" bargaining position with what the "market" provides. If he/she is a slave to their fear that is not the fault of the employer.
Your "unequal" word is no differetn than using the "Fair Share" argument when liberals demand the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than anyone else.
The job of the employer when hiring is simple. Get the highest skillset for the lowest pay. The SOLE purpose of the employee is to command the highest salary he/she can for the skills and value they can provide to an employer. When they both agree each persons circumstanses are irrelevant. You agree to ot not to do something based on the value you perceive at the time. DOn't like working for min. wage, or if it is not enough get a second job, and work harder. Stop watching "The Real Houswives of...." and do some self study and DEVELOP YOUR SKILLS.
I could write a 1,000 page dissertation on why some people whine about low salaries and other people in the SAME job role excel and either start with more or command more over time.
In my opinion, you will receive results in direct proportion to the effort you put into something.
It feels unequal, but on the other side the hiring manager is also worried about losing a good candidate or having to pay so much that he won't be able to stay in business. From her point of view, it's easier just to collect a paycheck than to worry about if you can maintain a level of pricing and business to pay for the employees and make enough profit so it makes sense to stay open rather than liquidating an investing in a business with greater returns.
I think I may understand what you're saying though. The employer has to get a good price from vendors so his competitor can't undercut him on price. Business is about putting together things and labor in a creative way that makes customers want to pay more for the service/product. So it's a balance of getting a good price from vendors/employees and doing smart things with them to create value.
"I will argue, however, against her championing of self-interest and disparaging religion. Those who follow and promote such a philosophy will end up as unhappy and diminished as she ended up."
The presumption of the author to know my happiness is absurd. Obviously he knows nothing about Rand's happiness either. I often read that blatant myth that Rand died unhappy and broken-which is nonsense, but it's an interesting new twist to threaten readers and promoters of Objectivism with the same mythical fate. Ultimately, he is scared to death of sites such as this one, that successfully bring together Conservatives, Libertarians and Objectivists. I'm glad to play a role in the irony of his piece as a post in here. :)
I think that you might, after being offended, concede more importance and value to this book.
Based on the reading only of the "auto-review" and not the book itself (I don't think it will ever deserve such a part of my lifetime), my impression is that he aims at the audience of already convinced anti-Objectivists, mostly for the purpose of serving the author's own financial self-interest. It seems to provide HIS synopsis of the message Rand sent with Atlas Shrugged, naturally, appropriately "abbreviated" and biased.
Notice the explicit invitation to self-sacrifice. Of course, I assume, for the "public good", "social justice" and "happiness for all", by submitting to the do-gooder-in-chief, the Big Government. He probably never mentions or addresses the question of what happens when all the confiscating does not supply enough goods for the do-gooders.
Let's just ignore him and compare three years from now the sales of his book with those of Atlas Shrugged.
Stay well. Fondly,
Maritimus
So glad you're here to do this for me - I'm not happy with where my blood pressure went when I read the article.
Rhetorical questions: Why was there a need for sacrifices to God in the first place? Sounds like a fix for a problem that never existed. Was he running for office?
" God did not demand sacrifice. God made that plain by sacrificing Himself, so that man would not need to sacrifice."
He didn't demand it, but he did it to himself to prove that man didn't need to do it.
Oh for Christ's sake, make some sense already.
Ranter, I'm sure there are superficial things upon which we would agree, but not on these fundamental ideas. Like oil and water, no matter how much you think you mix them, closer inspection shows they don't blend well. You are persistent, but sometimes it's the nature of things—to get stuck between reality and a 'hard case'.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrif...
We reject forcing or manipulating people into sacrifices they don't want to make, not the word sacrifice. You might sacrifice doing something you want to help your kids, and another time you might hire someone and sacrifice time with your kids to do something else. You might sacrifice your hobby to work on a paid project, or the other way around. It's your choice. The problem comes when someone tries to make the choice for you.
Point for point Ayn Rand says almost 100% the same thing as many fundamental Bible Scriptures. She did not believe in God which is certainly hers or anyone choice, however the Biblical Writings are also not at odds with her either.
Let me give, in my opinion, a Perfect example.
(John 15:13) 13 No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends.
Is that altruistic? I put it to you that it is not. If I am sacrificing MY life, for the sake of MY belief and MY principal for the value I percieve, that I personally value YOU, then MY choice is to perform and act that benefits ME and makes ME feel good about what I am doing.
That sounds like rational self interest to me. Look at what Ayn Rand said in an interview about love, value and sacrifice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9... 2:00 - 6:00 minute mark.
I understand your point.
Galt, upon returning to New York, did so to attempt to be there to save Dagny when she would come to grips with a decision and "join" the Gulch. Galt knew his life was at risk for this action. Galt states to Dagny when they are caught by the enemy in his apartment- to never ever let on that she "knows" him because, and I paraphrase here, "...if they ever guess that you know me and they torture you, and they will, to get me to cooperate, I would kill myself...".
What one chooses to love, what means more than one's own life, is a choice. That choice is not a sacrifice. It is an absolute.
Love your neighbor as yourself. "The Golden Rule." All are rational self-interest.
One old saying, "Be careful of the toes you step on today, since they may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow." Sounds like the golden rule and the Love your neighbor principal.
Rational Self Interest.
Is this a little 'pot stirring'?
(For those of you not familiar with the book, it is the conversations (via epistle) of two devils - one in training - about how to corrupt humans.)
I'm just going to ignore the book entirely. If I'm going to write a book, I'm not going to plagiarize someone else's characters just to make a point. That smacks of a lack of ingenuity on my part.
While I could understand where you might be coming from and I too have differences with much of religious dogma....
However, I do not agree with your statements about the Bible. In fairness to all philosophies, I happen to think that there are works in the Bible that are brilliant and hold their own. I have never approached the reading of the Bible from a religious point of view- it can make a big difference.
Even the title is disconcerting.
Would you call it a free ride on Rand's name?
That only takes one bullet.
Your efforts are appreciated.
I would think so.
I'm curious to know if it has been challenged?
There's also the other matter that it's unlikely this guy has anything to go after in the first place.
Now that's not to say it might not be infringement. There was a pretty notable case involving J.K Rowling and her "Harry Potter" series where a court did find that another author had blatantly plagiarized much of Rowling's work in publishing their own series. It may very well be the same here. But as it is being presented as a rebuttal of philosophy, ie an alternative perspective, they're not refusing to acknowledge Rand's original work at all. Thus while one might find it distasteful and one might identify factual inaccuracies in the book, it's going to be awfully hard to justify copyright infringement.
Much better to just pan the book outright.
I know that in the Gospel of Thomas there are a number of Jesus said- phrases that seem to paralell what Galt says in his diatribe.
Good night.
Happy Easter
Load more comments...