Dick Sirloin said:
I don't think, RiA, you realize that AS is the intellectual equivalent of watching Rugrats. She brings nothing new to the table, other than bad writing. That is why you see ALL these objectivists around, right? RIGHT?
So you weigh a philosophy dependent on the amount of followers that specific philosophy has? This paragraph makes it appear as such, and if this is the case, then you herald Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as great philosophies. Because afterall, it's all about the amount of followers correct?
Dick Sirloin said:
No, my teacher was not a humanitarian hippy, he is a dude who has spent his life reading philosophy... many Greek texts, such as Aristophanes and some of the Socratic dialogues, have been translated by him and used in most universities in the USA.
So he basically just sits around in his bathrobe all day questioning "Is a thing good because God desires it, or does God desire a thing because it is good?" Some real productive inquiry he has going on there.
Dick Sirloin said:
No, I didn't hate the book because I'm a liberal. I hated it because it was poorly written and has an unrealistic, inanimate "philosophy."
This just shows how little faith you have in the term "I". Can you say such a word without quivering from such an utterance? Just from everything you have said in regards to debunk her works. "My professor said", "this speaker came in and said", "yadda yadda". Can you not formulate an opinion on something other than through the guidance of another? I live by no other man's opinion other than my own. I'm my own expert on all subjects. I'll survey the information with my own sensory perception, and my own life experience. I don't need some dude with a grey beard, who' middle aged and still smokes weed to decipher anything for me. Yes, Ayn Rand is not for the collectivist mind, you're the proof.
Dick Sirloin said:
Let me guess, you don't read much. But you read a 1,000 page book so you said: "Hey, since I read that whole thing, I guess I'll subscribe to it 100%."
I read as much as I can. I'm not gifted with generous amounts of free time where I can sit down and read War & Peace straight through, this is true. But don't believe for a second that I accept everything I read as fact. Many of her ideas I have discarded. It's her ideas that elaborated upon ideas I had already had prior to reading her novel's that I am so vehemently supporting. Trust me when I say that most of the spunk you see me say on this forum was formulated on my own terms. And not in a sheepish manner.
Dick Sirloin said:
I generally find that Rand-ites are worse than Christians when it comes to TOTAL FAITH in one book. A book full of STRAIGHT LINES and people who are NOT WEAK and NOT SICK and GOAL ORIENTED with ANGULAR JAWLINES and A GRAND DESTINY IN THE FIELD OF BUSINESS, men who have BLUE EYES and, when they desire sexual satisfaction, RAPE women.
Are you such a pessimist that you dwell on the weakness that is "man", rather than exalt man's highest potential? Yes let's strive to live life in mediocrity, because afterall...That's whats "REAL"
Dick Sirloin said:
I'm not going to type those notes now, nor will I consult them at the moment. I'm comfortable in my own INDIVIDUAL hatred of this shitty shitty book.
But I thought you offered them to anyone who asked to see them? :Smug: