Stan R wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:44 am, kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Stan R wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 3:58 am, kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > > No jasne. Takove klasicke dilo bych cekal ze jsi precetl zanedlouho
> > > pote, co jsi se naucil ****adne anglicky! :-)
> >
> > > > Kolikrat jsi to cetl ty? Mohu-li se zeptat.
> >
> > > Dvakrat. Poprve pred lety pri cestovani po Africe. Na takovou
> > > jedenactihodinovou cestu v mozambickem autobuse to byla knizka primo
> > > idealni! ;-)
> >
> > > Podruhe jsem to pak cetl o par let pozdeji, kdyz mne pri tom
nerusily
> > > slepice, co pobihaly po autobuse... :-)
> >
> > > Cetl jsem taky Fountainhead, Anthem & We the Living. Dopurucuji je
> > > vsecky.
> >
> > > > V jednom s jejimy kritiky souhlasim. Jeji styl je ukrut-
> > > > nej. Je moc verbozni. Vety na pul stranky, kapitoly neko-
> > > > necny.
> >
> > > Jo, treba ta kapitola kde John Galt vysila v radiu o konci sveta
byla
> > > dost tvrda..! Jeste stesti ze dneska ten Internet dokaze pomoci i v
> > > takovych pripadech:
> >
> > >http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
> >
> > I found another one page synopsys for those unable,
> > or unwilling to undertake Rand's excruciating 1000+ page
> > intellectual pilgrimage:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4ekmy3
>
> Some interesting comments there, but I do wonder whether the author of
> the site, when making statements like "...the passages where she
> exalts America and insults other countries are just outrageous..."
> really understands the era in which Rand lived and the background from
> which she had come?
If anything, the changes during the last fifty years
in places like Mexico have been *in the direction of*
the picture she laid out in her book. Another in-
teresting fact, which was not yet manifest in the 1950's,
and which make Rand's message so relevant today,
is that the economic codependency fostered by col-
lectivism is now a global phenomenon determining
relations among cultures, not just individuals.
The noteworthy aspect of Mexico's case today is the
attitude of its government toward America's illegal
immigration problem.
An entertaining tangent brought to my attention
while listening to the radio on my way from work
yesterday: Colorado state legislature was dis-
cussing the merits of a proposed special program
to be extended to the state's undo***mented im-
migrants, in order to assure an adequate supply
of farm labor for this summer's harvest. A Repu-
blican Assemblyman stepped up to the microphone
to express his indignation over open discussion
of the idea to bring "thousands more illiterate
peasants" to his state, and he was immediately
ordered off the dais by the Assembly Speaker
for his statement.
http://tinyurl.com/5hyoej
>
> > Here is a view of Rand's Objectivist philosophy by a religious
> > libertarian, who (as a group) represents a more significant
> > countercurrent to the anti-growth, collectivist political main-
> > stream of present-day America.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3jm4gx
>
> I think the very definition of libertarian sits uneasily with
> "religious". To me it's nearly as bad as the currently popular
> "libertarian socialist".
>
> Rand herself was an atheist and the objectivist philosophy, as
> explained by herself, does not naturally sit with religion:
>
> "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."
>
> "Religion" and "Reason" are mutually exclusive.
>
> It is interesting that the person who wrote this article concurs with
> the above *****sment of Rand's philosophy, as outlined in Atlas
> Shrugged.
>
> The mental contortions he subsequently resorts to in order to square
> his own "mysticism" with Rand's objectivism are amusing.
I don't mean to start another dicussion of religion, but it
seems Rand's condemnation of "mysticism" was subordinate
to her obsession with the scourge of collectivism. She under-
stood the role of religion in the cultural origins of this society,
and its role in what made Americans different from the rest
of civilized humanity today. I don't think Rand shared all your
suspicions regarding religion.
>
> > > > A ten brozovanej tisk uz neni na my oci.
> >
> > > Kopie Atlas Shrugged co mam doma ma velmi male pismo. Taky uz bych
to
> > > bez bryli tezko louskal.
> >
> > > > Nicmene,
> > > > je to tema ktere by melo byt zahrnuto do povinne cetby
> > > > na vsech strednich skolach.
> >
> > > Jo na to si jeste dlouho pockame...!
> >
> > In my opinion, Rand was born 50 years too early.
> > The 1930's - 50's were not fertile enough for her kind
> > of ideas. Insufficient historical perspective. If she
> > lived, and wrote today, she would have much more
> > significant of a following. Do you agree?
>
> Too early or too late? Just look at what your source had to say:
>
> "Much about the story is an anachronism by the time of its
> publication. No pro-Stalinist intellectuals remained outspoken in the
> USA by 1957. In the world of today, with the collapse of the Iron
> Curtain already 14 years gone, it is difficult to suspend disbelief
> and imagine that Rand is writing about a real world."
>
> In fact, I believe that her observations are just as relevant now as
> they were then, as new forms of the same old collectivist disease are
> as prevalent as ever. Amongst these, it is now radical
> environmentalism first and foremost, but the faith in ever bigger
> government, statist economic theories and the quintessential free
> lunch are all as much of a threat now as they ever were 60 years ago.
She was obviously apalled by Roosevelt's social
programs, but fortunately 10 years of New Deal
economic nonsense was not quite enough to destroy
capitalism in this country. She had to make all that up.
However, as you observe above, fifty years later history
found a way to pay respect to Rand's ideas in quite
unexpected ways.
>
> S
|
