How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?

Religions > Atheism > How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	16 Feb 2006 07:13:06 AM
Object:	How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm
How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?
Reconsidering Ayn Rand
by Michael B. Yang
Excerpt from Chapter 1: Introduction
"Atlas Shrugged changed my life." Thousands, perhaps millions, of
people have spoken those words, and I was one of them. Eighteen years
have passed since I overheard three seniors at my high school
discussing a book called Atlas Shrugged. Its author was Ayn Rand. I was
fourteen years old and presumed myself fairly well read, but her name
was unfamiliar to me. The bits and pieces I snatched from my friends'
conversation intrigued me. It sounded as if they were discussing
philosophy, but they were also recounting stories with characters like
John Galt and Cuffy Meigs. What kind of names were those? What kind of
book was this? Out of curiosity, I purchased a copy.
"Who is John Galt?" Those are the opening words of a novel
unlike any other I had ever read before. The plot was thrilling, and
the ideas behind the story were inspiring and provocative. I had great
difficulty limiting myself to just a few hours with Atlas Shrugged each
day. Schoolwork was boring by comparison with my newfound love. When I
finished reading the book, I felt pleasantly exhausted and joyously
elated. I knew the course of my life had changed forever. I scribbled
on the last page of the book: "December 27, 1981. Date of my
intellectual rebirth."
In reality, I still knew very little about Ayn Rand or her
philosophy, but the stories and the ideas contained in Atlas Shrugged
had already brought me to a pivotal moment in my life. I knew that I
wanted to be like the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, but I realized that I
needed to learn more. So I devoured Rand's other writings, and within a
short time, her ideas became the dominant influence in my life.
The experience I had was probably common to hundreds of
thousands of readers who have felt the power of Rand's fiction. Since
its publication in 1957, Atlas Shrugged has sold more than five million
copies. Perhaps a measure of the book's continuing influence may be
estimated from the results of a survey conducted jointly by the Library
of Congress and Book-of-the-Month Club in 1991. The survey asked
readers which books had made a difference in people's lives. The
results found Atlas Shrugged placing second only to the Bible.1
While many readers have a profound knowledge of Ayn Rand others
have only a cursory familiarity with her name or her writings. Who was
she, and why have her ideas become so influential?2 Briefly, Ayn Rand
was born Alice Rosenbaum. She immigrated to the United States from the
Soviet Union in 1926. Despite difficult beginnings as a writer, she
eventually gained international fame as the author of The Fountainhead
(1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She was a novelist as well as a
philosopher, although for years few professional philosophers gave her
much attention or respect. Her careful integration of fiction and
philosophy was a unique accomplishment, and her novels served as a
literary platform for portraying the practical consequences of the
philosophical system she conceived: Objectivism. This philosophy is
lived out by the heroes in her stories and had its most profound and
dynamic expression in Atlas Shrugged.
What are the fundamental beliefs of Objectivism? Rand
summarized her philosophy in this way:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being,
with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with
productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only
absolute.3
In contrast to the prevalent liberal tendencies of the era in which she
lived, Rand was an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism and reason. She
was not, however, a conservative in the typical sense of the word.
Indeed, she was often anathema to the conservatives because she
advocated rational selfishness as a virtue while denying the existence
of God. Her name and her highly controversial ideas were familiar to
many who grew up in the sixties and seventies. Today, eighteen years
after her death, her ideas have penetrated every level of society, and
her influence remains widespread. Even though her name may not now
possess the same fame and recognition it once had, those who are
sensitized to her name will hear it mentioned often. Perhaps one of her
best-known students is the current chairman of the Federal Reserve
System, Alan Greenspan. In addition, the Libertarian political
movement, even though it was officially repudiated by Objectivism,
remains one of the most visible results of Rand's influence.
Indeed, Ayn Rand's ideas have inspired whole movements.
However, we should not lose sight of how she came to have such
influence. She touched people one at a time through her fiction. Like
many of those who adopted the philosophy of Objectivism, I was first
attracted to Rand because of her novels. What appealed to me were the
heroic, confident individuals she portrayed in Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead. There was an independent, intellectual streak in me that
was drawn to Rand's characters, for they exemplified what I wanted to
be. The beckoning call to live the full and uncompromising life of
someone like Howard Roark or John Galt was difficult to resist.
Some people might find it odd to mix fiction and philosophy.
But Rand's novels offered breathtaking adventure and suspense that was
fully integrated with passages on philosophical issues. From the
stories, I learned about ideas that were the fountainhead of the
courageous and productive lives that Rand had created in her fictional
heroes. I also discovered the motives behind the contracted,
destructive existence of her villains. As Leonard Peikoff has said, Ayn
Rand was the preeminent salesman for philosophy:
Who else could write a Romantic best seller such as Atlas Shrugged-in
which the heroes and the villains are differentiated fundamentally by
their metaphysics; in which the wrong epistemology is shown to lead to
train wrecks, furnace breakouts, and sexual impotence; in which the
right ethics is shown to be the indispensable means to the rebuilding
of New York City and of man's soul?4
Indeed, there are intense thematic conflicts in Rand's writings. She
pitted reason against faith and feelings. She upheld the existence of
an objective reality, as opposed to the idea of an illusory and
subjective world put forth by some philosophers. However, it seemed to
me that Rand's views regarding these fundamental issues were merely
preparatory to her explanation of the intense moral and political
conflicts that have characterized much of man's history. The combatants
in this struggle were the ethics of self-interest and the ethics of
self-sacrifice. The idea that was the focus of Rand's praise was
rational egoism. The object of her wrath was altruism.
Why did Rand find altruism so objectionable? The answer lies in
what people mean by altruism and how they practice it. Ayn Rand defined
altruism this way:
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for
his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his
existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue
and value.5
In her nonfiction works, Rand demonstrated how the ideas of altruism
had historically been used to destroy man's soul and render him a
malleable instrument in the service of the State (communism and
socialism) or the Fatherland (Hitler's fascism). However, she did not
end her analysis of altruism with political systems. She traced the
idea of altruism to religion in general and Christianity in particular.
As far as Rand was concerned, all religions were merely variations on
the theme of altruism. Instead of man living for the State, he lived
for God. The Judeo-Christian heritage seemed to evoke her severest
criticism. Christianity, she said, was an anti-life, anti-self
philosophy and was thus incompatible with the life of a rational being.
Through the strategic use of chapter titles, well-known sayings, and
stereotyped characters that allude to Christian themes, Rand portrayed
Christianity as chief perpetrator and originator of altruism.6
Consequently, many people who read Rand's novels came to identify
Christianity with all that is evil, not only in the fictional world of
Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead but also in the real world that we
inhabit. As a result, it was impossible to be a genuine student of
Objectivism and not be an atheist.
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged provided a foundation, but
many students of Objectivism grew in their understanding of Objectivism
and gained intellectual ammunition against altruism and Christianity
through Ayn Rand's nonfiction works like TheVirtue of Selfishness,
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology. More serious students investigated the original sources:
The Objectivist or The Objectivist Newsletter. Rand's former colleague,
Nathaniel Branden, supplied other materials for consideration in his
later best-selling books: The Psychology of Self-Esteem and The
Psychology of Romantic Love. Even though Branden was removed from the
Objectivist movement in 1968 as a result of a schism known as "the
break," his writings in these books are a logical continuation of his
original contributions to The Objectivist and continue to influence
many who admire Rand. Similarly, while the Libertarians were never part
of Objectivism, many Libertarian writers openly declare their
admiration for Rand. George Smith, for one, has contributed much to the
education of Rand's admirers through works like Atheism: The Case
against God.
Indeed, I had absorbed the information presented in these key
books and felt confident that Objectivism was right about Christianity
and altruism. With time, however, I began to notice that the way many
Christians lived did not fit the box that Rand had put them in. For
example, some Christians were vibrantly confident and successful. They
were also keenly aware of, and interested in, intellectual issues. All
the while, they manifested genuine love and compassion toward other
people. What could account for this discrepancy? If Christianity were
an altruistic system, and if altruism could result in only
self-abnegation, envy, and irrationality, such people as these should
not exist. Furthermore, it was not so easy to attribute the "good" in
these people to reason, and the "bad" to faith, as Rand often did.
This question and other factors prompted me to start examining
the Bible during my first semester at Harvard Medical School. After
all, I had never read the book myself. I had been relying on
professional Objectivists and Libertarians to tell me what was in it.
My goal in examining the Scriptures was to prove that my Objectivist
mentors were right after all. I anticipated that my questions would be
resolved, and my arguments against Christianity would be strengthened.
Confidently, I said to myself, I'll read the Bible, and then I'll be
able to tell Christians exactly why they are wrong.
So I began. At first, the Bible seemed like an odd collection
of stories and puzzling statements that I had to wade through. I had to
reserve judgment on many passages until I understood their context
better. Other sections, particularly the ones that commented on moral
conduct, antagonized me. Objectivism had taught me a rational,
justifiable code of ethics. What use did I have for these ancient,
religious beliefs? Nevertheless, I persisted. Soon, I began to
recognize a few biblical passages as having been alluded to in Rand's
works. However, they did not seem to say what Rand claimed they said.
For example, in Atlas Shrugged, Rand, speaking through her character
Francisco d'Anconia, appears to demolish with ease the proverb that
"money is the root of all evil." That saying, in the mind of many
readers, owes its origin to Christianity. So, by implication, Rand was
detracting the Christian view of economics and morality However, I
discovered that the Scriptures say nothing of the kind. Instead, the
corresponding passage actually reads, "For the love of money is a root
of all sorts of evil."7 At first I was tempted to dismiss the
misquotation, but soon I became quite uneasy about the enormous
difference in meaning those few words make. Any thinking person can see
that for himself. The passage warns against an attitude that would love
and idolize money; it does not condemn the possession or rightful use
of money I became concerned that other errors might be lurking,
somewhere. They were.
Many readers are also drawn to Rand's novels by the passionate,
romantic relationships she conceived. Howard Roark and Dominique
Francon. John Galt and Dagny Taggart. Who could forget their love? We
will pursue the subject of love more thoroughly later, but it is worth
stating here that Rand believed Christianity's anti-self philosophy had
a devastating impact on man's view of sexuality. In Atlas Shrugged,
John Galt asks:
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man's]
Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state
they consider perfection? ... He was sentenced to experience
desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment.8
Obviously, Rand was under the impression that Christianity considered
sexual enjoyment evil, regardless of what context it occurred in, since
sex came about in a fallen, sin-infested world. Ironically, I
discovered a number of scriptures that say quite the opposite.
So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He
who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own
flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the
church.9
Loving your wife as you loved yourself? What an intriguing concept. I
thought Rand had said the focus of Christianity was purely
self-sacrifice. And what was I to make of the passion that was
unabashedly sanctioned and encouraged in this proverb?
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As
a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all
times; be exhilarated always with her love.10
Rand seriously misjudged the Christian view of sexuality.
These two errors, one a misquotation and the other a
misinterpretation, disturbed me. How could someone as brilliant and
intelligent as Ayn Rand have made these mistakes? To be sure, these
errors were committed in the practical branches of her philosophy, but
it was precisely those areas of her philosophy that initially drew the
attention and admiration of most readers. I wondered if
there were additional errors in the theoretical foundations of her
philosophy. I was far from giving up hope in the philosophy I had
learned from Rand, but neither was I about to let these discrepancies
slip by. Rand had often warned her readers: "Check your premises." Now
these words echoed in my mind. I began questioning the entire
philosophy that Rand had developed and especially the
way she and other writers characterized Christianity.
In that process of inquiry, I discovered I was not alone. Serious
questions were being raised by other writers about Rand's ideas on
reason and existence. Essays in The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand,
edited by Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, had challenged the
meaningfulness and usefulness of Rand's famous philosophical
principles: Existence exists, and consciousness is identity. On further
scrutiny, Rand's distinction between faith and reason also seemed to
break down. The analysis offered by the several authors who contributed
to that volume served as a springboard for my own thinking. Beyond
this, I revisited the philosophical questions about God that Rand never
adequately addressed. I began to grapple with the nature of scientific
inquiry and its often reported conflict with Christianity. Moreover, I
considered and weighed the evidences for the Christian faith. There was
also the beginning of an examination of my own life and purpose.
That quest resulted in my acknowledging the truth and the reality
of Christ-that he is the resurrected Savior and the Lord of all. I
began that journey by reconsidering Ayn Rand and the philosophy of
Objectivism, and I have continued to grow in my understanding of her
philosophy in the years since I came to know Christ. I would like to
share that journey with you in the following chapters. The topics flow
from the practical issues of self-esteem and romantic love, to the more
theoretical questions about
reason, faith, morality, and the existence of God. The order of the
contents follows the path that many people take to Objectivism. Most
people are attracted to Rand first by her characters and stories and
only then begin to understand and assimilate the ideas and philosophy
behind them. Even then, most learn the philosophy from her fiction.11
Therefore, it might be most fruitful to revisit the stories and ideas
of Ayn Rand in the same order that they tend to influence people.
As I mentioned earlier, a Library of Congress survey found Atlas
Shrugged second only to the Bible in its impact on readers. It amused
me to think that I had been influenced by both books. Today, there are
perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who still steadfastly adhere to
Rand's ideas. There are perhaps millions more who have been influenced
and shaped by her in some way. Some may have relegated Objectivism to a
small corner of their lives. Others, perhaps, have become disillusioned
and abandoned her philosophy altogether, but their lives were forever
transformed by their encounter with Objectivism. And there is a new
generation just beginning to discover her writings. I hope this small
volume will speak to them all.
I lived through Objectivism, not as a noted figure of the
movement, but as an ordinary person whose life was profoundly affected
in trying to live out Ayn Rand's ideas. I am grateful for the temporary
vision of strength and wisdom that Rand gave me at a crucial time in my
life. But ultimately, that strength and wisdom failed, and the vision
turned out to be an illusion. Nevertheless, that failure prepared me to
receive the Living Truth, who is the only fountainhead of all genuine
strength and wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Library of Congress Information Bulletin, December 16, 1991, pp.
478-479.
2 Two biographies of Rand have appeared in print. In 1962, Nathaniel
and Barbara Branden wrote Who Is Ayn Rand? In 1986, Barbara Branden
completed The Passion of Ayn Rand.
3 "About the Author," Atlas Shrugged. The pages cited in the books by
Ayn Rand are from the paperback editions. The exception is Philosophy:
Who Needs It.
4 Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. vii.
5 "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modem World," Philosophy: Who
Needs It, p. 74.
6 For example, chapter 5 in part 3 of Atlas Shrugged has this title:
"Their Brothers' Keepers."
7 1 Timothy 6:10.
8 Atlas Shrugged, p. 951.
9 Ephesians 5:28-29.
10 Proverbs 5:18-19.
11 The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 388.
.

User: "Joseph Hertzlinger"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 11:06:29 PM

"Justice cannot go out of existence because one is an attribute of the
other." --- Judge Naragansett
Sounds like the ontological proof to me.
--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
.

User: *"Grdn"*
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 08:10:29 AM

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com>:

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

The subject line alone made my day.
.

User: "Accidental"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 11:30:14 PM

G*rd*n wrote:

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com>:

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

The subject line alone made my day.

It is amusing to try and count in how many different ways the subject
line is completely off-base.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	17 Feb 2006 08:24:30 PM

In <1140095586.243468.234650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote:

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand have made these
mistakes?

I bet you, yourself, couldn't even begin to explain what "mistakes" Rand
made...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Churches are closing...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M611110AC
Mardi Gras is rolling...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
Now, what was this about god's judgement?
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Josef Balluch"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 02:22:36 PM

In a message sent 'round the world, Sound of Trumpet poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
....

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

....
I have heard estimates of as many as 20,000 sects of christianity. IOW,
some 2 billion christians cannot agree amongst themselves as to the
correct interpretation of scripture. Given that, it seems quite
presumptuous for you to assume that YOU have the correct interpretation,
and rather arrogant to expect that others need agree on that.
Regards,
Josef
The less you know, the more you think you know, because you don't
know you don't know.
-- Ray Stevens
.

User: *"nemo"*
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	17 Feb 2006 04:01:38 AM

In article <1140095586.243468.234650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote:

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand Reject God?

The same way most ex-believers do... using reason. Duh!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 10:58:40 AM

In article <1140095586.243468.234650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
soundoftrumpet@lycos.com says...

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent

How "brilliant" and "intelligent" was she? I mean you can't be very
"brilliant" because you don't even realize that "brilliant" and
"intelligent" are synonymous and thus redundant in this context. That
to one side, does anyone have a reliable IQ score for Rand? She wrote
some novels that were initially a flop, but eventually found some
sycophantic followers who proclaimed her a "genius". Perhaps compared
to her weak-willed lackeys, she was a genius. Yet she really had no
serious credentials. She just wrote trashy romance novels, dressed up
in the trappings of amateur, half-assed pseudo-philosophical and
political ramblings. She wasn't an economist, or a sociologist or a
philosopher, though she played a philosopher on TV.

as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

Despite the fact that Ayn Rand had no credentials and wasn't a
particularly original thinker, her broken watch philosophy was right at
least twice a day. She was not mistaken in recognizing that atheism was
the only logical response to pious faith nonsense. She was right also
in pointing out that we cannot always live for other people and give no
thought to ourselves. Where she was wrong was in the degree of her
obsession with the promotion of the self, over the common good and her
almost magical, athenian delusion that "heroic" figures and "geniuses"
emerge full-formed, as if from the head of zeus.
.

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 11:36:39 AM

(quibbler) wrote in
news:MPG.1e5e5d2e929dd007989682@news.readfreenews.net:

She wrote some novels that were initially a flop,

To date, over 5 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold, and
more than 100,000 copies are sold every year.
Combined sales of her works stand at over 20 million.
If you have an argument to make about her work, don't try to base it
on the popularity of her books.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 11:55:05 AM

"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns976C764E05DA0VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...

quibbler247@yahoo.com (quibbler) wrote in
news:MPG.1e5e5d2e929dd007989682@news.readfreenews.net:

She wrote some novels that were initially a flop,

To date, over 5 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold, and
more than 100,000 copies are sold every year.

Combined sales of her works stand at over 20 million.

And Oasis, the self-proclaimed "next Beatles" made a couple
poppy, ear-candy albums that sold millions. Where are they now.
The only thing Ayn rand got right was atheism. Otherwise, she's
cut from the same mold as the neo-cons...probably the most
widely read author in that group other than LeHay.
.

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 12:03:44 PM

(Geoff) wrote in
news:I6qdnbncerHkIWnenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com:

"Bert Hyman" <

> wrote in message
news:Xns976C764E05DA0VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...

quibbler247@yahoo.com (quibbler) wrote in
news:MPG.1e5e5d2e929dd007989682@news.readfreenews.net:

She wrote some novels that were initially a flop,

To date, over 5 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold,
and more than 100,000 copies are sold every year.

Combined sales of her works stand at over 20 million.

And Oasis, the self-proclaimed "next Beatles" made a couple
poppy, ear-candy albums that sold millions. Where are they now.

You apparently stopped reading my post too soon:
If you have an argument to make about her work, don't try to base it
on the popularity of her books.

The only thing Ayn rand got right was atheism. Otherwise, she's
cut from the same mold as the neo-cons...

If you honestly believe there's any similarity, then you have cause
and effect reversed.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 02:23:57 PM

In article <Xns976C7ABB58C42VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,

says...

gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com (Geoff) wrote in
news:I6qdnbncerHkIWnenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com:

"Bert Hyman" <

> wrote in message
news:Xns976C764E05DA0VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...

quibbler247@yahoo.com (quibbler) wrote in
news:MPG.1e5e5d2e929dd007989682@news.readfreenews.net:

She wrote some novels that were initially a flop,

To date, over 5 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold,
and more than 100,000 copies are sold every year.

Combined sales of her works stand at over 20 million.

And Oasis, the self-proclaimed "next Beatles" made a couple
poppy, ear-candy albums that sold millions. Where are they now.

You apparently stopped reading my post too soon:

Just as you apparently stopped reading my post too soon.

The only thing Ayn rand got right was atheism. Otherwise, she's
cut from the same mold as the neo-cons...

If you honestly believe there's any similarity, then you have cause
and effect reversed.

Irrelevant. The point is that there are similarities even between
people like Rand and LaHaye who had diametrically opposed religious
views.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 02:19:56 PM

In article <Xns976C764E05DA0VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,

says...

quibbler247@yahoo.com (quibbler) wrote in
news:MPG.1e5e5d2e929dd007989682@news.readfreenews.net:

She wrote some novels that were initially a flop,

To date, over 5 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold, and
more than 100,000 copies are sold every year.

Combined sales of her works stand at over 20 million.

Hell, L. Ron Hubbard sold more than that and so did Deepak Chopra,
probably. It hardly proves the books had any merit, except in terms of
generating money that is.

If you have an argument to make about her work, don't try to base it
on the popularity of her books.

That is not even remotely what I argued. I just mentioned this fact in
passing as a bonafide part of her history. Now go back and read the
rest of the substantive criticisms I did make of her. Thanks.
.

User: "jcon"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 11:36:42 AM

quibbler wrote:

In article <1140095586.243468.234650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
soundoftrumpet@lycos.com says...

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent

as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

Related to that, she also did a good job of combating the romantic
notion of Stalinist Russia that was rampant in academic and
literarary circles at the time (and has not completely died out today).
Ironically, this seems to have been largely by fighting fire
with fire, or more accurately "pseudo-intellectualism with
pseudo-intellectualism".

Where she was wrong was in the degree of her
obsession with the promotion of the self, over the common good and her
almost magical, athenian delusion that "heroic" figures and "geniuses"
emerge full-formed, as if from the head of zeus.

Also, although she was herself a very successful woman,
and ostensibly supported women's rights, the major female
characters in her novels are basically spoiled brats who
exist to be raped by the major male characters - an
experience which they ultimately enjoy and which results
in their becoming more or less total drones for the rest
of the novel or play [Some issue you need to talk to
your shrink about there, Ayn?]
And let's face it, her obvious rape fantasies aside, she
was philosophically a one trick pony. She essentially
had one idea, that could be fully explained in about
ten pages, that she parlayed into an entire literary
and philosophical career. Kind of like
Dr. Phil or that guy that writes all the "Mars
and Venus" books.
-jc
.

User: "James Henry Graf"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 05:03:28 PM

"jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140111402.748063.309370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

And let's face it, her obvious rape fantasies aside, she
was philosophically a one trick pony. She essentially
had one idea, that could be fully explained in about
ten pages, that she parlayed into an entire literary
and philosophical career. Kind of like
Dr. Phil or that guy that writes all the "Mars
and Venus" books.

-jc

That one idea, however (individual rights) is one that Liberals needed, and
still need, to hear and heed. As Ms. Rand herself put it: "The smallest
minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot
claim to be defenders of minorities."
The tendency to think in terms of groups rather than individuals pollutes
the philosophy and morality of progressive persons and organizations,
especially refugee authorities. They advocate for the rights of this race,
that ethnic group, this political faction, that social group, this gender,
or that lifestyle choice. In doing so, they ignore or forget that human
rights, derived from the essential dignity of the human person, apply to
every individual, without distinction. Every person is entitled to the equal
protection of the law. No-one may be deprived of life liberty or property
without due process of law. Every person is the sovereign owner of her or
his own mind, body, character, personality, and constellation of talents and
abilities.
The film _Judgment At Nuremberg_ came out in 1961, when Ayn Rand was
probably at the peak of her popularity. It is a fictionalized production
based loosely on the actual trials that took place after World War II. Judge
Haywood (Spencer Tracy), in delivering his judgment, concludes with the
following:
"Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our
decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a
single human being."
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechjudgmentatnuremberg3.html
James Henry Graf
Please Make UN Treaty-Based Committees Do Their Jobs
(my personal appeal)
http://www.angelfire.com/nj/jhgraf/makeun.html
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 06:23:18 PM

In article <4x7Jf.16545$rH5.13706@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
jhgraf2@earthlink.net says...

"jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140111402.748063.309370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That one idea, however (individual rights) is one that Liberals needed, and
still need, to hear and heed.

I agree that liberals could do a better job defending individual
liberties, though they certainly do a better job than most social
conservatives.

As Ms. Rand herself put it: "The smallest
minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot
claim to be defenders of minorities."

But that's obvious nonsense and most five-year-olds could see the hole
in that logic. It's not just the transparent equivocation in her
argument that is annoying, or the fact that she has set up a strawman,
or even the fact that she is attempting to co-opt positions like
"minority rights" that she thinks she can manipulate for her own
agendas. It's that she honestly expects to get away with her sloppy,
absolutist, either/or thinking without being called on it. Now as to
refuting her claim, just look at any one of the issues I've raised. If
one thinks of a right as an absolute and inviolable claim (and this is
how people often see it) then one could deny that a right is guaranteed
under all circumstances, but still defend the rights of individuals and
larger minorities in a host of other circumstances. This still
disproves her assertion, because you can deny the absolute prerogative
of the individual and still defend minorities. Also, it often is the
case that small groups of people acquire rights that each person
individually did not possess before. Any small group who get's together
to form a community government ends up acquiring additional rights which
they did not have prior to incorporation. Remember that the DoI says
that governments are instituted to secure rights. One would, indeed,
have no rights without a particular government to "secure" it.

The tendency to think in terms of groups rather than individuals pollutes
the philosophy and morality of progressive persons and organizations,

See, I can agree to an extent. But, if one never worried about the group
then one would lose many benefits which can only be accomplished on a
large scale. How would government ever do large scale projects which
one could not do individually? How about basic research which requires
large expenditures of money and may not return on the investment for
decades?

especially refugee authorities. They advocate for the rights of this race,
that ethnic group, this political faction, that social group, this gender,
or that lifestyle choice. In doing so, they ignore or forget that human
rights, derived from the essential dignity

I'm not sure that "dignity" is well enough defined. Instead, the main
reasons that I believe we often respect the rights of individuals and
groups is that, lacking compelling reasons to do otherwise, (1) we
acknowledge the fact that the majority can be wrong and (2) we need to
have other opinions expressed which give us a basis for debate. If
there is only one side of an argument then there is no debate and thus
no progress in one's thinking. Of course, sometimes we add additional
justifications for rights, including Rawlsian considerations, or an
ethic of perfectability of our potential, etc, etc. One's defense of
rights necessarily depends upon the values and ethical systems which
underlie our social network.

of the human person, apply to
every individual, without distinction. Every person is entitled to the equal
protection of the law.

I don't think that Rand herself defended that standard consistently.
Even she believed that some people were more equal than others before
the law or other tribunals of judgment.

No-one may be deprived of life liberty or property
without due process of law.

But since one can make any manner of law when a government is starting
out, it becomes an arbitrary exercise to deprive a person of any one of
these things. The only non-arbitrary aspect is convincing others that
your proposed legal standard is one which they should support.

Every person is the sovereign owner of her or
his own mind, body, character, personality, and constellation of talents and
abilities.

Yet almost no government in the world, including particularly that of
the US, honors one's right to one's own body, mind, etc. They all place
restrictions.

The film _Judgment At Nuremberg_ came out in 1961, when Ayn Rand was
probably at the peak of her popularity. It is a fictionalized production
based loosely on the actual trials that took place after World War II. Judge
Haywood (Spencer Tracy), in delivering his judgment, concludes with the
following:
"Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our
decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a
single human being."

Yes, humans have value, but it's not so much by virtue of the fact that
they are humans. It's because of the function of what humans do. They
are thinking beings. Non-thinking entities are less valuable and
impaired minds are also less valuable. No, we should not choose trivial
traits like skin color or harmless culture quirks like wearing a
yarmukle as a standard for discrimination. There are many times that
individual human beings have value on their own, but there are some,
like Saddam Hussein, who may not have value as an individual. Also,
groups collectively may have greater rights than the sum of their
individual rights. So I'm not sure how useful the "single human"
standard is.
.

User: "James Henry Graf"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 10:20:28 PM

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5ec5617b3ec1c9989689@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <4x7Jf.16545$rH5.13706@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
jhgraf2@earthlink.net says...

I agree that liberals could do a better job defending individual
liberties, though they certainly do a better job than most social
conservatives.

To the injured, aggrieved, outraged, and abandoned, it doesn't matter much.
When the house is on fire, any fireman who comes up the ladder is welcome. A
believer in "white power' has written to the UN on my behalf, saying, in
effect, that the Dutch and Danish Governments discriminated against me
because I'm a Caucasian. I thanked him with all my heart. Besides, in a
certain sense, it's true.

As Ms. Rand herself put it: "The smallest
minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights
cannot
claim to be defenders of minorities."

But that's obvious nonsense and most five-year-olds could see the hole
in that logic.

I must be four years old. It makes perfect sense to me. It's about power.
The majority has the power to work its will on the minority. Of those so
disempowered, the individual is the most impotent in the face of arbitrary
power and discrimination. Denying an individual's rights, then, betrays a
certain insensitivity, a lack of empathy, that contravenes the altruism of
those who claim to defend minorities, rendering their position essentially
hypocritical.

It's not just the transparent equivocation in her
argument that is annoying, or the fact that she has set up a strawman,

I don't see it that way, having experienced the very hypocrisy that she
denounced

or even the fact that she is attempting to co-opt positions like
"minority rights" that she thinks she can manipulate for her own
agendas.

What agendas was she advancing in making that statement?

It's that she honestly expects to get away with her sloppy,
absolutist, either/or thinking without being called on it.

Pardon me, but absolutes do exist, in the physical world, the world of
logic, and the moral world as well.

Now as to
refuting her claim, just look at any one of the issues I've raised. If
one thinks of a right as an absolute and inviolable claim (and this is
how people often see it)

This is how Jefferson saw certain rights, how the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights sees them, and how I see them. The crux of the matter is what
rights ought to be included in that category. Howard Roark's alleged right
to blow up a project he designed, in which others have invested huge sums of
money, because those others had not remained true to his artistic vision,
does not deserve such inclusion.

then one could deny that a right is guaranteed
under all circumstances, but still defend the rights of individuals and
larger minorities in a host of other circumstances.

Are you saying that an altruistic person who denies the absolute right not
to be raped, or supports the right of some, but not all persons, to be free
of rape, is nevertheless a person of integrity?

This still
disproves her assertion, because you can deny the absolute prerogative
of the individual and still defend minorities.

Again, Rand was pointing out the essential hypocrisy of such a position.
There is, in fact, so much evil, so much suffering and injustice in the
world, that people can pick and choose among issues and still feel good
about themselves. As I pointed out above, this does violence to the rights
of Arlo Guthrie's "last guy" http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/pause-claus.shtml
and is therefore regrettable and often reprehensible.

Also, it often is the
case that small groups of people acquire rights that each person
individually did not possess before. Any small group who get's together
to form a community government ends up acquiring additional rights which
they did not have prior to incorporation. Remember that the DoI says
that governments are instituted to secure rights. One would, indeed,
have no rights without a particular government to "secure" it.

The DoI speaks of "self-evident" truths, that all men are created equal and
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
These rights apply to every individual equally. Individuals form communities
and governments to secure these rights, not to create them. These
governments and communities are, toward that end, vested with powers. The
people exercise and enjoy rights individually, but exercise powers
collectively.

The tendency to think in terms of groups rather than individuals pollutes
the philosophy and morality of progressive persons and organizations,

There's nothing wrong with collective enterprise, even profit-driven
enterprise, so long as it does not violate the essential rights of
individual persons.

especially refugee authorities. They advocate for the rights of this
race,
that ethnic group, this political faction, that social group, this
gender,
or that lifestyle choice. In doing so, they ignore or forget that human
rights, derived from the essential dignity

I'm not sure that "dignity" is well enough defined.
Instead, the main
reasons that I believe we often respect the rights of individuals and
groups is that, lacking compelling reasons to do otherwise, (1) we
acknowledge the fact that the majority can be wrong and (2) we need to
have other opinions expressed which give us a basis for debate. If
there is only one side of an argument then there is no debate and thus
no progress in one's thinking. Of course, sometimes we add additional
justifications for rights, including Rawlsian considerations, or an
ethic of perfectability of our potential, etc, etc. One's defense of
rights necessarily depends upon the values and ethical systems which
underlie our social network.

"Personhood" might be a helpful concept here. Essential rights are those
derived from one's existence as a human person. One need not deserve them.
Adolph Hitler and the late Mother Theresa had the same essential rights.
Certainly, the values and ethical systems which underlie our social network
influence popular thinking in such matters. For some (for the US Government,
in fact) a full-term unborn fetus is not a human person and therefore has no
rights. Students in school do not enjoy the same Fourth Amendment rights
that adults enjoy. Many persons would not care if certain wicked criminals
were tortured. I see hypocrisy in all these.

of the human person, apply to
every individual, without distinction. Every person is entitled to the
equal
protection of the law.

I don't think that Rand herself defended that standard consistently.
Even she believed that some people were more equal than others before
the law or other tribunals of judgment.

She certainly did believe that genius deserves special prerogatives, that
certain highly creative individuals may flout the law along with other forms
of convention.

No-one may be deprived of life liberty or property
without due process of law.

In the case of the principle I stated, that decision was made in 1789, when
the Bill of Rights (including the Fifth Amendment) was ratified. New Jersey,
by the way, was the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights. The signing
took place about a hundred yards from where I sit, at the present site of
Perth Amboy, NJ's City Hall. The Fourteenth Amendment later applied the
principle to the states.
True, declaring that certain rights are essential and universal is an
arbitrary process, but one that benefits from the input of many individuals.
The rights protected are those that were most flagrantly violated by the
British during colonial times. Hard and negative experience forged a
consensus.

Every person is the sovereign owner of her or
his own mind, body, character, personality, and constellation of talents
and
abilities.

Yet almost no government in the world, including particularly that of
the US, honors one's right to one's own body, mind, etc. They all place
restrictions.

Yes, unfortunately. The Netherlands is the freest place I've seen.

The film _Judgment At Nuremberg_ came out in 1961, when Ayn Rand was
probably at the peak of her popularity. It is a fictionalized production
based loosely on the actual trials that took place after World War II.
Judge
Haywood (Spencer Tracy), in delivering his judgment, concludes with the
following:
"Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our
decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a
single human being."

We are back to the question of "inherent dignity." I was once the world's
most mediocre speech therapist. For the last thirteen years of my career, I
worked with mentally-retarded and developmentally-disabled clients. I could
not have done so had I not recognized the "personhood" of every single one,
including the one who tried to scratch my eyes out.
Would you have considered these individuals valueless and devoid of rights?

No, we should not choose trivial
traits like skin color or harmless culture quirks like wearing a
yarmukle as a standard for discrimination. There are many times that
individual human beings have value on their own, but there are some,
like Saddam Hussein, who may not have value as an individual. Also,
groups collectively may have greater rights than the sum of their
individual rights. So I'm not sure how useful the "single human"
standard is.

But in positing intelligence or morality as a criterion in matters of
essential rights, are you not moving closer to Ayn Rand than you would
perfer to be?
James Henry Graf
Please Make UN Treaty-Based Committees Do Their Jobs
(my personal appeal)
http://www.angelfire.com/nj/jhgraf/makeun.html
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	23 Feb 2006 09:41:25 PM

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5ec5617b3ec1c9989689@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <4x7Jf.16545$rH5.13706@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
jhgraf2@earthlink.net says...

"jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140111402.748063.309370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That one idea, however (individual rights) is one that Liberals needed,
and
still need, to hear and heed.

I agree that liberals could do a better job defending individual
liberties, though they certainly do a better job than most social
conservatives.

As Ms. Rand herself put it: "The smallest
minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights
cannot
claim to be defenders of minorities."

But that's obvious nonsense and most five-year-olds could see the hole

Sure most five year old are deeply versed in logic... they're not from the
US are they ???

in that logic. It's not just the transparent equivocation in her
argument that is annoying, or the fact that she has set up a strawman,

Add some more cliches here to make up for the lack of argumentation, it
sounds rather unconvincing....

or even the fact that she is attempting to co-opt positions like
"minority rights" that she thinks she can manipulate for her own

Not minority rights, top of the bell curve rights, or perhaps non-moronic
individual rights.

agendas. It's that she honestly expects to get away with her sloppy,
absolutist, either/or thinking without being called on it.

She apparently did, and made a nice living out of it. How are you faring ?

Now as to
refuting her claim, just look at any one of the issues I've raised. If
one thinks of a right as an absolute and inviolable claim (and this is
how people often see it)

Well if that's how people often see it, then it must be true....

then one could deny that a right is guaranteed

under all circumstances, but still defend the rights of individuals and
larger minorities in a host of other circumstances. This still
disproves her assertion, because you can deny the absolute prerogative
of the individual and still defend minorities. Also, it often is the
case that small groups of people acquire rights that each person
individually did not possess before.

Yes the herds do tend to gather and make up for their individual weaknesses,
this probably makes them right too,

Any small group who get's together
to form a community government ends up acquiring additional rights which
they did not have prior to incorporation. Remember that the DoI says
that governments are instituted to secure rights.

That's at least good for a laugh. Governments are there to take your money.

One would, indeed,
have no rights without a particular government to "secure" it.

Rights are just concepts you can have rights but unless you have to force to
secure them it means nothing.

The tendency to think in terms of groups rather than individuals pollutes
the philosophy and morality of progressive persons and organizations,

Some examples might be more fruitful....

especially refugee authorities. They advocate for the rights of this
race,
that ethnic group, this political faction, that social group, this
gender,
or that lifestyle choice. In doing so, they ignore or forget that human
rights, derived from the essential dignity

No the truth is that no one knows what the majority thinks about anything
they can only know what they think about a given subject and get some clue
about others they interact with, the majority is just a meaningless term
controlled by the media.
(2) we need to

have other opinions expressed which give us a basis for debate. If
there is only one side of an argument then there is no debate and thus
no progress in one's thinking.

Thinking is not a technology it hardly requires progress. The earth is
round, debate it as much as you will.

Of course, sometimes we add additional
justifications for rights, including Rawlsian considerations, or an
ethic of perfectability of our potential, etc, etc. One's defense of
rights necessarily depends upon the values and ethical systems which
underlie our social network.

of the human person, apply to
every individual, without distinction. Every person is entitled to the
equal
protection of the law.

I don't think that Rand herself defended that standard consistently.
Even she believed that some people were more equal than others before
the law or other tribunals of judgment.

She never believed in equality of people, have you read anything that she
wrote ?
Have you ever met anyone you found to be your "equal" ???

No-one may be deprived of life liberty or property
without due process of law.

But since one can make any manner of law when a government is starting
out, it becomes an arbitrary exercise to deprive a person of any one of
these things.

Depends on the person I would thinl.

The only non-arbitrary aspect is convincing others that
your proposed legal standard is one which they should support.

Every person is the sovereign owner of her or
his own mind, body, character, personality, and constellation of talents
and
abilities.

Yet almost no government in the world, including particularly that of
the US, honors one's right to one's own body, mind, etc. They all place
restrictions.

The US is hardly an example of anything worth mentionning.

The film _Judgment At Nuremberg_ came out in 1961, when Ayn Rand was
probably at the peak of her popularity. It is a fictionalized production
based loosely on the actual trials that took place after World War II.
Judge
Haywood (Spencer Tracy), in delivering his judgment, concludes with the
following:
"Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our
decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a
single human being."

Still he could manage Irak which is apparently beyond the US' ability. But
that doesn't speak highly of him just very low of the US....
Also,

groups collectively may have greater rights than the sum of their
individual rights.

Explain what rights you are referring too....

So I'm not sure how useful the "single human"
standard is.

Clearly you are not.
.

User: "jcon"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	18 Feb 2006 09:59:42 AM

James Henry Graf wrote:

"jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140111402.748063.309370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Don't get me wrong, I remember being profoundly affected when I first
read The Fountainhead, and it's probably not even unfair to say it
"changed my life". But it was definitely in the form of a shock to
the
system that made me think about things. When one looks deeper,
her "philosophy" is so extreme and simplistic that they were ultimately
no more workable than the extreme and simplistic collectivist notions
she was fighting.
Also, her stark views made here a pretty repetetive author. I really
loved
The Fountainhead, then I read Anthem, which I thought was OK, but kind
of silly. Then I slogged through Atlas Shrugged and a few hundred
pages
in, wanted to scream "OK, OK, I get it already!". Let's face it, depth
of
character was not her strong suit. She essentially had three character
types:
Supermen - The natural rulers of humanity: brilliant,
industrious, good with money, physically perfect and
atheletically gifted.
They dress well enough to be gay, but they're uber-het, and
***** like
Ron Jeremy. All Supermen are not *quite* equal, but luckily
they
all mutually agree on and respect their relative ranking, so
they
don't get jealous. For example, they don't mind at all when
the
woman they are having sex with leaves
them for a better Superman. For all of their great qualities,
Supermen have NO sense of humor, and I think if I met one at
party, I'd suddenly remember a phone call I had to make.
Superman Boosters - Note quite Supermen. They might do one or
two things well, but their important trait is that they
understand the
importance of Supermen and want to do everything in their
power
to help them. All the major female characters fall into this
category,
and this is why they understand what an honor it is to be
raped
by a Superman. A few male characters fall into this category,
but
luckily all the Supermen are straight. Some of these
characters,
particularly the women, are allowed to have a sense of humor.
EE (Everyone Else) - Slimy, conniving, manipulative. The only things
they
have are what they can steal from Supermen. Luckily, you can
recognize them by looking at them. They're pale, have bad
skin,
their lips quiver, and their eyes dart around a lot. Shooting
them
is OK if they get in the way of Supermen.

The Nazis are an interesting topic. It's clear Rand detested the
reality
of Naziism, but what about the *ideal*. Her heros are very much
like the myth of Aryan Supermen - with the exception that they
didn't have to be of any particular race. Her fixation on physical
appearance and ability made it clear she felt that the "Superman
Quality" was largely innate - either you had it or you didn't. Even
when Supermen did bad things (like Wynand in The Fountainhead),
they were still Supermen, and that made them OK.
Like the Nazis, she felt Supermen had the right to rule by virtue of
their ability to do so.
-jc
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 03:07:17 PM

In article <1140111402.748063.309370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
cirejcon@yahoo.com says...

quibbler wrote:

In article <1140095586.243468.234650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
soundoftrumpet@lycos.com says...

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent

as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

Related to that, she also did a good job of combating the romantic
notion of Stalinist Russia that was rampant in academic and
literarary circles at the time (and has not completely died out today).

I think that this, more than anything accounted for her accidental
success. There was an unmet need for someone who could criticize the
reality of the stalinist regime, apart from the idealized "Marxist"
propaganda that some people thought about it.

Ironically, this seems to have been largely by fighting fire
with fire, or more accurately "pseudo-intellectualism with
pseudo-intellectualism".

It's true that many "Marxists" of the era were hopelessly naive. But
then again, that's easy to see in hindsight, whereas the excesses of
Lenin and Stalin weren't as well known at the time.

Of course, to be fair, the culture of her day popularized that message
to women in print and film.

And let's face it, her obvious rape fantasies aside, she
was philosophically a one trick pony. She essentially
had one idea, that could be fully explained in about
ten pages

Yes, and that's with every conceivable nuance of objectivism. You could
probably her main ideas down to about two pages and not lose much. Of
course, one could do the same thing with many other authors as well.
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 11:22:43 AM

quibbler wrote:

In article <1140095586.243468.234650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
soundoftrumpet@lycos.com says...

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent

as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

Excellent book review. I dutifully plowed through Altas Shrugged and
The Fountainhead a bunch of years ago, got about three quarters through
each one and just didn't care anymore. Harsh melodramas set in a bleak
world with unrealistic characters.
.

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 11:15:30 PM

On 16 Feb 2006 05:13:06 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote:

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand have made
these mistakes?

Actually, her atheism is one of the few things about her that
*doesn't* beg such a question...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As Ayn Rand Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 01:50:51 PM

On 16 Feb 2006 05:13:06 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote:

http://www.enclairpub.com/excerptpage1.htm

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as Ayn Rand

Well, compared to you, maybe.
Yet another moronic Christ-fucker who thinks all atheists idolize
Rand.
<copy-and-post idiocy snipped>
.

User: "Sound of Strumpet"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As C S Lewis Not Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 10:06:18 AM

Sound of Strumpet wrote:
How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as C S Lewis have made
these mistakes?
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As C S Lewis Not Reject God?	16 Feb 2006 06:47:05 PM

In article <1140105978.675521.268990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com says...

Sound of Strumpet wrote:

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as C S Lewis have made
these mistakes?

Some "as brilliant and intelligent as C S Lewis" often rides the little
bus to school. For Lewis to be a fake atheist for a little while and
then to squander the balance of his life on terrible fiction and moronic
apologetics it clearly didn't require much in the way of cognitive
faculties.

User: "Clothaire"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As C S Lewis Not Reject God?	19 Feb 2006 09:46:34 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:47:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In article <1140105978.675521.268990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com says...

Sound of Strumpet wrote:

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as C S Lewis have made
these mistakes?

C S Lewis assured his fame as a second rate Catholic apologist when he
wrote "Mere Christianity" with its famous trilema:
"Lord, liar, lunatic."
Clothaire #1392 P.A
"No god has ever been in advance of its people." Robert Ingersoll
"A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around
them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not
conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a
wall of words between his consciousness and his real self."~ Eric
Hoffer
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment
of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits?
More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy,
ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,
bigotry and persecution." --James Madison
"Where religion rules, truth is an outlaw.
-Ivan Gowch
.

User: "mel turner"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As C S Lewis Not Reject God?	19 Feb 2006 10:17:45 PM

"Clothaire" <clothaire@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:uceiv1dnbdr9js4u8npg8rk7uocm97mqqn@4ax.com...

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:47:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[snip]

C S Lewis assured his fame as a second rate Catholic apologist when he
wrote "Mere Christianity" with its famous trilema:

"Lord, liar, lunatic."

Right, he at the least left off:
"Legend", and "loosely based on one or more real persons, but
only loosely", and "lied about, long after his life".
[is there an "L" word for "misquoted"? Perhaps he should
switch to the "Ms" for lots of possibilities:
"Misquoted, mistaken, misunderstood, misrepresented,
misspoke, made-up, myth..."
cheers
.

User: "Paul Erickson"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As C S Lewis Not Reject God?	21 Feb 2006 10:48:16 PM

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:46:34 -0500, Clothaire <clothaire@ieee.org>
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:47:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In article <1140105978.675521.268990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com says...

Sound of Strumpet wrote:

How could someone as brilliant and intelligent as C S Lewis have made
these mistakes?

C S Lewis assured his fame as a second rate Catholic apologist when he
wrote "Mere Christianity" with its famous trilema:

"Lord, liar, lunatic."

And the most important condition for accepting the LLL argument is
that one first believes in the truth of most of the New Testament...
The guy does say some insightful things sometimes, but I think a lot
of his arguments are downright dishonest. I was raised on the Narnia
books, and I hate to have to say something like that about the guy.
He wrote some engaging fiction -- not only for children -- and
apparently earned his keep as a philologist.
.

User: "Brian Henderson"
Title: Re: How Could Someone As Brilliant And Intelligent As C S Lewis Not Reject God?	23 Feb 2006 12:56:13 PM

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:48:16 -0600, Paul Erickson
<prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

And the most important condition for accepting the LLL argument is
that one first believes in the truth of