Topic started by sandy (@ 203.197.42.84) on Sat Mar 10 03:23:03 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
|
I have been a great fan of Ayn Rand and her novels have really fascinated me. Her philosophy of selfishness is really appealing |
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: Sumithra (@ h80ad2b7e.dhcp.vt.edu)
on: Tue Jun 19 10:51:54
STG,
That was not Sruthi- I'd written about commitment.
Yes, I know it's very stylish to call anything that's traditional as "orthodox". I'm not a fan of traditions or conventions or norms. But at the same time, being unbiased, I don't find it hard to accept a convention which I think is good or moral. Commitment to values is one thing, and I understand that Dagny Taggart was committed to her values, and her foremost value was to attain the best. If that were the case, when she all the while knew that John Galt was the best, and knew she would meet him some day (she knew it because Rand's characters always have this divine Will power, and they know they're going to get what they want), then why did she at all have to consider Hank Rearden? Doesn't it mean that she was ready to compromise with something that wasn't best, till such time she got the best?
And commitment to a person is another aspect, and I understand that if it conflicts with your principle that you should always get the best in everything, then you have to switch to another person. In this case, I'd say that I neither relate to it, nor respect the principle. See, Rand talks of a person's mate being a reflection of what the person is, and explains her characters' need for the best companion, with this idea. So this explains why Dagny switched to John Galt - she depended too much on her mate reflecting her, so she thought the best companion would reflect her best- for a person with a big ego, how should this make such a big difference?
Ofcourse, it's ridiculous when people can sleep with just anybody,and it makes sense to look for someone intellectually compatible for a partner, but I think beyond a point, it's depravity to drop a person, not because you could no longer get along with him / her, but because you found a better person. Relationships like this, in my opinion, are too private, and for a person who's proud of the relationship he /she is in, it is far too precious. So how dignified do you think it is to have the same private, precious relationship with a zillion people, each time nullifying the previous relationship? How can you let so many people know the most private you - your mental, intellectual, emotional and physical composition - don't you hold it precious? Well I'm far too egotistical for that! And I also know that commitment to a person means that you will be by his / her side always, unless you find something absolutely gross or stupid about the person all of a sudden!
- From: Sumithra (@ h80ad2b7e.dhcp.vt.edu)
on: Tue Jun 19 10:54:00
STG:-
TO QUOTE YOU,
"You say love for children is expected of the parents? who expects? the public? what is the public? "
If you yourself don't know what "public" refers to, why use it? Why ask whether the public expects it?
That was an awesome attempt at sounding like Ayn Rand. Congratulations!
- From: Sumithra (@ h80ad2b7e.dhcp.vt.edu)
on: Tue Jun 19 11:02:36
Another thing Sruthi:-
It doens't take Any Rand's philosophy, or an Ayn Rand's follower, or reading Ayn Rand to get disgusted with the reservation system. You know that everyone affected by it is digusted and all of them haven't read Atlas Shrugged. And they do feel it strongly. Would you say that if they'd felt it as intensely, they'd have done something about it by now? If that's the case, people like you, who have read Ayn Rand must be all pepped up and change the country, or may be form an anti-society like those heroes & heroines in Atlas Shrugged did.
- From: Sumithra (@ h80ad2b7e.dhcp.vt.edu)
on: Tue Jun 19 11:04:46
Sruthi:
(Incase you want it), my reply to ur latest message is on the "old responses" page.
- From: Sruthi (@ 203.197.49.37)
on: Thu Jun 21 02:44:24
Hey Sumithra!
I'd talked about Rand's concept of love, which u had apparently talked about over and over again. Now your focus has turned to a whole new direction.
I ahd written the part about reservations before I read ur words on Ayn Rand's aspect of love...
Here goes what i think about her ideas on love...
Dagny's switching from Rearden to Galt...I dont like that...
According to her a passionate relationship forms a tribute to those people whom, u adore whom u feel mirror ur values I agree wiht...thats the part I agree completely with...
but I believe in a one to one mapping...she does not...we diverge at this point....I was rattled in fact ...coz I was totaaaallllly infatuated with Frisco..(wondered why dagny wanted nyone else...)maybe its way of proving her point to the fullest..
love is somehting which cannot have competettion..If u can love two people with the same intensity...then what do u do?????If it were possible to choose both...its a highly complicated situation...prevent all that..one to one mapping....
But one more thing...Hank Rearden'ts "indfidelity" as u put it before...Is anything but that..that marriage with Lillian did not exist...everything that a marriage signified was null and void....
And having 12 kids is still being selfish, if he's able to feed the 12 kids why shouldn't he have them, if he's as selfish as Rand asks people to be, he wouldn't care about the society anyway.
Did any a time any character(the "good" ones:)do anyhting to detriment the cause of society?????In fact they wanted to achieve...to make things better...to make survival into living....unfortunately it wa the society who thought ulta...sad...even today its true...
And well, I agree with you that the reservation policy sucks.And Rand's ideas are appropriate in such a situation. And that's the reason I (objectively) say that Rand's philosophy has its good, but it has its rubbish too, and going ga ga over her is pointless.
There's this beautiful line..."Find tongues in trees...sermons in stones...etc.."
Compared to sooooo many authors...she has really put forth dormant ideas to the forefront...If u goto see...reservations are just the tip of the iceberg...Everywhere in India...merit is the last thing that is valued...
I ahve professors teaching me who cant utter a word properly...(I'd be ashamed to touch my salaries if I were them...)and we are taught to respect them just because they are our teachers...
what is this...respect without earning it...
People who deem it right that u work and they enjoy...its such a common scenario that a group knows there's this person will definitely slog and see to it that the work is done...moochers...
U take one aspect and condemn and say...no gaga business...
I take all aspects leave out a few and say...well spoken....
Primarily I think we agree on similar things...maybe Iam lenient in giving credit(i dontthink coz I disagree on one aspect...she isnt good...)and it takes a lot to get sumithra's approval:)
Her ideas about the person u love reflecting ur character is true...
Her philosophy of condeming the moochers because of whom "social good" started to stink is very very very true...
If u read We the Living...Andrei's love for Kira is the most beautiful example of unconditional love I ahve ever come across..
I do love this dame...and go gaga gaga oveer her works:)
Good Luck on your exams!
Thanks!!!!!I defi neeeeeed it:))
PS
It doens't take Any Rand's philosophy, or an Ayn Rand's follower, or reading Ayn Rand to get disgusted with the reservation system.
But don't u see...her whole book deals with the same evil...somehting that has been implemented as a law claiming its for the "well being of the society" and against a select intelligent community..the useless majority wanting to suck the blood of the capable minority!!!!!!
I could repeat the whooole book just change the names of Jim Taggart to our politicians and the meritorious students epitomising Dagny and Rearden and Frisco...
Her book mainly dealt with that merit should get proper place in society..If not...be selfish..if the society does not care about u..dont be an altruist and care about the society...take care of urself!
They tell u that u wont get a seat...not because u ahvent got the marks...coz..u dont" deserve" it...
THen they expect u to later work to make the country progress...!!!!!
Ur virtue..u love this piece of land..they bind u wiht that...give lotsa guilt trips...brain drain they call it...
break free!!!Sanction of the victim...no more..!!
This basic philosophy of selfishness..dont show ur rightcheek...if the person wants to hurt u...no damn obligation on ur part to get hurt!In fact..the other person is not even an equal adversary...a moocher...who binds u by ur own virtue!!!How cud u not agree with this!!!!
- From: stg (@ st54.aramco.com.sa)
on: Sat Jun 23 05:49:19
STG:-
TO QUOTE YOU,
"You say love for children is expected of the parents? who expects? the public? what is the public? "
If you yourself don't know what "public" refers to, why use it? Why ask whether the public expects it?
That was an awesome attempt at sounding like Ayn Rand. Congratulations!
... OH you completely missed the point. it was not an attempt to sound like rand.. it was rand's words.. of course if one says it is expected.. one has to say who expects it? why? ( again ayn rand only) and why the heck should others follow it.
as to your reply about dagny. frisco and rearden (after he met dagny) and galt stuck to their commitment and they did not go to zillion other women. The whole point is not whether dangy is correct in hopping to the next best value. It her right to do so. If you do not like it ..then good nobody stops you and importantly no on has the right to coerce you to that effect. You want to stick to one person come what may well you are free to do that..
as to your ...but I think beyond a point, it's depravity to drop a person, not because you could no longer get along with him / her, but because you found a better person.....
Well what then is the reason for the millions of divorce cases all over the globe..( at least dagny has not married).
- From: Faiyaz Hardwarewala (@ 194.170.1.66)
on: Mon Aug 6 07:21:26
Hi all,
I chanced upon your conversations on Dagny's switch from Hank Rearden to John Galt. Though what I have is not exactly a reply to the exact specifics of your situation, I would like to reproduce something I just recently wrote in response to a similar query. I reproduce first the query and then my response. This reply of mine was part of a message on the egroup: Objectivism_in_india at www.yahoogroups.com
The query was:
>Cummon, how can you have
> sex with someone, and then drift on to another, just
> because you find
> him/her more ideal?? It doesn't make any sense to me.
My reply was:
In this issue, I believe that the basis for having sex with
someone is the same as friendship or love. The basis
between male to male close friendship and male to female
sexual relationships is the same --- the other person's
dedication to one's values. With the opposite sex, there is
one thing more you can do (besides the rest of the
implications of raising a family and living together).
Now, to forever commit yourself to have sex with only
person, is to grant him./her a moral blank check --that no
matter “how you act in the future, I will always love
you/value you.”
But love and friendship have to be constantly earned, and
to expect such a blank check from someone, is a parasite's
notion of love (which James Taggart expects from Cheryl ---
love just ‘me’, without any reference to my actions).
So, if your partner changes for the worse in the future, or
never lives up to your image of him, or you come across
someone who is more deserving and worthy, it is natural for
yu to love the latter person more, and love in a
heterosexual context would give rise to sexual feelings,
whether the parties involved acknowledge it or not.
But you may say, what if one is already married? Do you
keep divorcing every time you meet a better person? This is
an issue on which I lack full knowledge. But for a few
pointers, the pertinent question to ask is that why do
people get married in the first place? Sex is a private
matter between two consenting individuals, and obviously
they do not need permission from the law or society to
engage in that. Or in other words, you don't need to get
married (get the sanction of the law) to have sex with
someone (who consents). So, then why get married at all?
From what little I have thought on this, I believe that
people should get married only to secure the rights of
their children ---so, marriage should only come in, when
one is planning to raise a family. Once, you are commited
to raising a family, you must then be prepared to commit
yourself to a relationship, or rather, you must only think
of raising a family if you are prepared to commit yourself
to that person for the span the children would be properly
raised - which, if there are more than one children, would
involve about 20 years. Of course, you would be free to
divorce if your partner become evils, and poses a threat to
you and your children. But once you have decided to raise
children, then I think you just can’t abandon your marriage
if you happen to meet a better person --unless your partner
turns evil, or say, your children have turned adults (but
then again, it would be cruel to abandon your partner in
old age, just because you found a better person).
Faiyaz Hardwarewala (faiyaz_h@yahoo.com)
- From: sandy (@ 202.54.122.177)
on: Mon Sep 3 09:07:07
Dagny's switch is due to her insecurity rather than anything else.
List all pages of this thread