My book is finally in print
My first philosophical work is finally available on Amazon! It's a logical derivation of the societal values which underpin a society dedicated to preserving and promoting the individual pursuit of purpose. Both Kindle and print versions are available. Thanks especially to all those here in the Gulch. Many of you are cited on the acknowledgements page and if you aren't it's probably because I was rushed at the last minute to get something to the editor! If you are interested in a signed copy, pm me with your address.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Not the best definition right now but I am working on it. I am sure I'll get a lot of feedback on that one too.
I also see that when discussing a philosophy it can be viewed as a waving finger at you. This is it, it's definitive and don't question it. Not everyone is like that but that's the impression I get from Rand.
Funny thing is that Objectivism is probably more humanly relatable than many other philosophies if it was never tainted by the extreme left's viewless point.
No, she did not. She was prophetic in the sense that she foresaw the trajectory of where communist dictatorship led to.
Her genius is playing out now, as we see the gradual encroachment of communist doctrine in our lives, more than half century after publishing her novels.
I never found her cold and hard, but passionate, straight to the point, intelligent and informative. Combative as well, with reason, considering the many stupid and attacking questions volleyed at her.
Just look at Trump, for example. Many say he is totally different in private or one on one, and here, we can also understand why.
Many "experts" simply ignored and denied her.
If you look up other authors who were trailblazers and how did they react to the negative environment, her style was not unusual.
" more human personality emerges in her writings and I am sure that showed with others in private as well. "
There is no such thing as "cold and hard" and "more human in her writing".
It is the very same individual.
I don't notice that with others when philosophy is being discussed.
As stated, "we can understand why"...meaning, she invented the thing, she is defining and defending her work, we also might add, her experiences that lead her there.
Of course, as you state, a more human personality emerges in her writings and I am sure that showed with others in private as well.
A cold and hard personality would never have been able to write "The Fountainhead", let alone "Atlas Shrugged".
Where are you getting this idea? It is totally off the page.
Blarman responded to me by evasively going off on tangents, often laced with baseless and gratuitous false personal accusations. He never acknowledged his mistatements and often later repeated them as if nothing had been said. He demanded that I not respond to his public posts and tried to get me banned from the forum, then dramatically announced that he was not reading what I posted. He does not engage in "critical thinking", has not "honed" his reasoning, and I have nothing to do with his book.
Ayn Rand did not say anything "just happens randomly". Nor did she "prefer not to address" religious mysticism. She did address it, with devastation, as irrational.
But "times have changed" and "Rand's style was Rand's style", Captain Obvious tells us. This is all so typical of his pompous, vacuous pronouncements.
The plot and characters in Ayn Rand's 1930s novel dramatically showing the oppression in the Soviet Union was "dry and academic" and "for the 1960s"? The 1943 psychological best seller The Fountainhead was "dry and academic" for the 1960s in 1943? Atlas Shrugged, a novel with timeless values and a gripping plot that still appeals to millions is "dry and academic" and "for the 1960s"? All the essays and lectures of the 1960s through the early 80s that brought people to their feet with excitement and applause? What is he talking about?
If that is what Blarman believes then what is he doing on this forum other than as an unethical militant internet warrior thumbing his nose at the purpose of this forum as he promotes his anti-Ayn Rand religious conservativism, grandiosely claiming to "combat trolls on the pages of social media, attempting to bring sanity and rational thought to the Internet!" His Platonist speculations, pretentious floating abstractions, and ignorance of Ayn Rand are anything but "sanity and rational thought".
I saw some of the comments about Rand and "more human" but I understand what you mean. When I "read" (actually listened to) Atlas Shrugged, the voice actor doing the narration was very good, but some of the roles like Rearden and Galt were delivered in a rather deadpan manner and my only criticism of those characters, along with Roark in Fountainhead (again, audio book narration) was that they sometimes seemed flat, emotionless, like for a character to be likeable for me, they have to show a certain range of human emotion, in my opinion that makes it more effective and their speech more effective. It seemed to me, and perhaps this was merely the artistic license of the narrator and/or my imagination, that the antagonists were given livelier voices than the heroes. Of course there's some literary license at work here, too. I doubt that any audience, in 1957 or 2019 would listen to a three hour radio speech, I don't care what the topic is :). Again Rand was a philosopher, so one could criticize these long conversations and soliloquies as being too deeply philosophical. To each his/her own, but that is kind of the point.
I do look forward to checking out the book, even if for no other reason than to get a fresh look at some of these philosophies.
I might have said, instead, her lacking expression of humanity.
Jan
Jan
Load more comments...