PLAYBOY: Miss Rand, your novels and essays, especially your controversial best seller, Atlas Shrugged, present a carefully engineered, internally consistent world view. They are, in effect, the expression of an all-encompassing philosophical system. What do you seek to accomplish with this new philosophy?
RAND: I seek to provide men -- or those who care to think -- with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life.
PLAYBOY: What are the basic premises of Objectivism? Where does it begin?
RAND: It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man's only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.
PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged your hero, John Galt, declares, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." How is this related to your basic principles?
RAND: Galt's statement is a dramatized summation of the Objectivist ethics.
LAYBOY: What, in your view, is the proper function of a government?:bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow
RAND: Basically, there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights. Since rights can be violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force: from those who are criminals. Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force.
except for the negroes and jewsGet the fuck out, This is an adult conversation.
Get the fuck out, This is an adult conversation.
Ayn Rand
I seek to provide men -- or those who care to think -- with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life.
PLAYBOY: Can't Objectivism, then, be called a dogma?
RAND: No. A dogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is, without rational justification or against rational evidence. A dogma is a matter of blind faith. Objectivism is the exact opposite. Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason.
PLAYBOY: If widely accepted, couldn't Objectivism harden into a dogma?
RAND: No. I have found that Objectivism is its own protection against people who might attempt to use it as a dogma. Since Objectivism requires the use of one's mind, those who attempt to take broad principles and apply them unthinkingly and indiscriminately to the concretes of their own existence find that it cannot be done. They are then compelled either to reject Objectivism or to apply it. When I say apply, I mean that they have to use their own mind, their own thinking, in order to know how to apply Objectivist principles to the specific problems of their own lives.
those who attempt to take broad principles and apply them unthinkingly and indiscriminately to the concretes of their own existence find that it cannot be done.
RAND: I seek to provide men -- or those who care to think -- with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life.
Guys, I think maybe that if we stop talking to it then maybe it would just go away.
Individual rights. I like.
:bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow
there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights
the protection of individual rights
individual rights
eliminating govt wiretap/unwarranted surveillance, unnecessary military spending on wacko-jacko military activities [Iraq war....Reagan's STAR WARS EPISODE INFINITY], and not being anti-big govt yet pro-big business
you know. The kinds of things the average US con. seem to be against.
except for the negroes and jews
Ayn Rand: 1
Pathetic internet troll: 0
PLAYBOY: And how would you define altruism?
RAND: It is a moral system which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the sole justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, value and virtue. This is the moral base of collectivism, of all dictatorships. In order to seek freedom and capitalism, men need a nonmystical, nonaltruistic, rational code of ethics -- a morality which holds that man is not a sacrificial animal, that he has the right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor others to himself. In other words, what is desperately needed today is the ethics of Objectivism.
eliminating govt wiretap/unwarranted surveillance, unnecessary military spending on wacko-jacko military activities [Iraq war....Reagan's STAR WARS EPISODE INFINITY], and not being anti-big govt yet pro-big business
you know. The kinds of things the average US con. seem to be against.
Wait what did Obama vote on the recent telcom immunity bill?
What did Hillary and almost all the dems vote on the Iraq war?
It's funny you think being pro-big government is a good thing yet they directly lead to domestic spying, foreign wars etc...
It's also laughable that you mention Reagon foerighn debacle but fail to mention the biggest democrat president shitfest ever. The Vietnam war.
Plus nothing what you mentioned even remotely relates to Ayn Rand
Individual rights. I like.
:bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow
there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights
the protection of individual rights
individual rights
Such as permitting gay marriage, not banning abortion, eliminating govt wiretap/unwarranted surveillance, unnecessary military spending on wacko-jacko military activities [Iraq war....Reagan's STAR WARS EPISODE INFINITY], and not being anti-big govt yet pro-big business
you know. The kinds of things the average US con. seem to be against.
I was merely commenting on the hypocrisy of 'pro-individual, pro-small govt' conservatives. Which you deliberately failed to mention
the giver was a great book
the giver was a great book
Read Anthem.
the giver was a great book
Read Anthem.
read the Fountainhead
in all honesty i can tell you that even without any political bias atlas shrugged is still a bad book, and really not worth your time.the giver was a great book
Read Anthem.
read the Fountainhead
Still reading that at the moment. I cant wait to tackle Atlas shrugged.
so do you guys like the giver? i read it when i was 13, at which point i didn't know what loletarians were
the giver was a great book
Read Anthem.
read the Fountainhead