Hate to veer too far off the topic (romantic loyalty / relationships), but I do find the effort to integrate some of the philosophical products of various religions into the Objectivist framework stimulating... Thanks for your reply.

I'm a sort of odd atheist with a great respect for what I can glean about what/who Jesus was. I happen to be married to a true Christian. We've bridged many gaps by applying some very simple translations, and even read from the bible periodically.

I replace the word "God" with "the essence of man", "the essential man", "every man", or "the spirit of man" - essentially all those attributes which make a man a man (naturally with their measurements omitted).

I often replace the word "create" with "conceptualize".

"Heaven" is simply a state of mind.

And so on...

It's quite interesting to read, say, Genesis, and realize that the beginning can easily serve as a description of what every man goes through during birth and the first few years of life.

While our approaches to interpreting a given religious concept are often dramatically different, we often arrive at the same conclusions... It's a quite lively and entertaining way to affirm each other's values.

I am testing your argument regarding genius. "that said, no genius is ever lost. The harder you hold them back, the more explosive their effect when it hits the market. "

Greetings patricking,
Not so! Rand had respect for Christian ethics. It was the mysticism, and martyrdom that she objected to.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religi...

Objectivism, like many other philosophies cover various topics. Her philosophy of Capitalism is as useful to Christians as it is to any other faction. You can pick and choose any portion of any philosophy you choose. It just means you are not an "Objectivist"... you are not doctrinaire. It does not mean you can not appreciate the other facets of the philosophy.

Respectfully,
O.A.

Your first statements are outrageous. To state that Evolution is not falsifiable is to show profound scientific ignorance. Your statement that evolution is incomplete at best- Relativity is "incomplete" at best, Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, on and on. This does not mean they are not profound scientific theories, with great explanatory and predictive powers.
I agree with your last statement.

Ayn Rand was conflicted in matters of sexual identity possibly because she felt she did not live up to her own standards for female attractiveness expressed through her heroines. Judging from the lifestyles of her romantic couples, one would have to conclude that the "sanctity" of marriage did not exist for her. It was (and is) a difficult question that she never resolved in her lifetime.

But she was a great woman who asked the right questions about life on earth and brought philosophy to new heights of rationality. She should not be discounted because she didn't have all the answers. Why would a fish happy in water want to seek dry land?

"if you meet someone "better" as you put it and your heart calls out to that person instead of the one you are currently with, if your heart has suddenly or "irresistibly" moved, then it might even be an insult if you stay with the one you are with at the moment. No one wants to be sacrified for, and no one wants love and commitment out of pity."
This is a plausible explaination for the storyline in one of AR's early works, "The Husband I Bought" circa 1920's. Irene marries her great love, Henry. They are very happy for a number of years, then Henry takes a fancy to another women, but his commitment ot Irene is strong. Pity? I don't know. Irene creates a lie and tells Henry she, is in love with someone else and they divorce. She sets him free to be with his new infatuation/love. Irene leaves town and lives a secluded life alone loving Henry until she dies.

AR's literary skills grow tremendously over the years along with the development of her philosophy. Her views on romantic love and its connection with marriage had roots very early in her life.

Just to jump in... I prefer that NEW topics address these two points and I can start the discussions elsewhere under other rubrics.

Evolution may be "explanatory" but so is astrology. A science must meet a standard of falsifiability and Darwinian Evolution does not. Known facts about fertile hybrids show that the theory is incomplete, at best.

As for patents, protecting the intellectual property of the inventor is one thing, but whether present law does it right is a different question.

More on those later.

Wait a minute, khalling, are you suggesting there is PROOF of evolution? Rand is perfectly right. We have SOME evidence of evolution and evolution is a neat theory that CURRENTLY explains some natural observed phenomenon. But it is NOT a fact. If a better, simpler theory than evolution becomes available tomorrow science would drop it like a banana peel. Scientifically no one has ever seen any species 'evolve.' On the contrary, breeds devolve.

I completely understand Rand's point of view on this. Evolution is not a religious concept which we must wholeheartedly accept or accept "intelligent creation." There are things we still don't know. Much about evolution falls into that category.

What she said was that those who do not love themselves first do not deserve love and here too, she was perfectly correct. Here's that interview: http://youtu.be/1ooKsv_SX4Y

How do you figure I said Newton would have developed the same ideas if born in India, khalling? Is this a "straw man argument"? Obviously anyone who thought that would be wrong. It is nothing like anything I have stated.

are you telling me that if Newton had grown up in India, he still would have developed all of his ideas? what about if Einstein grew up in sub-saharan africa?
"the harder you hold them back, the more explosive their effect when they ht the market."
Love the optimism, but it just isn't true. It is no coincidence that a Jobs or a Edison or a Gates grew up in a country fundamentally founded on reason and natural rights (which includes intellectual property rights). It is no mistake that the rights of inventors and authors are the ONLY rights enumerated in the original Constitution.

"By the way, if I sold all my property and gave the money to the poor to free myself up to pursue something I valued more highly, that would be an action quite consonant with Objectivism."

Only if it was to to improve his own lot and his own ideas. Jesus is demanding self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is at complete odds with Objectivism: http://youtu.be/1ooKsv_SX4Y

on patents: well then you disagreed with Rand. You must be holding the Movement back.
and your analysis regarding patents, their protection and scope is wrong.
"What about Rand's understanding of Evolution do you disagree with?" Her lack of it.
On Evolution: secondhand, Nathaniel Branden in "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" :
"I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable." (Neil Parrile, Rebirth of Reason, "Ayn Rand and Evolution.")
A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. Evolution is one of THE most well documented, most explanatory scientific theories Man has.
How about the interview in which she stated very few of us were deserving of love?

The problem with Jesus (the man) is that there is no actual evidence he existed. The mythology around him is common to "man gods" from nearly every culture: Krishna, Siddartha, Tamuz, Odin, Osiris, Hiawatha on and on. His miracles are absurd. His remarks, some of which are worth considering, are all attributed to earlier rabbis. Although Pontius Pilate certainly existed, there is no record anywhere of the execution of Jesu Ben Joseph or any similar name while most other records of that era exist. One of the starkest divisions between Rand (who certainly existed) and Jesus comes in Matthew 19 21-24 which concludes with Jesus saying, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."

I'm not sure how a conversation between Jesus and Rand would go. She would not be easy on him if her interview with Mike Wallace is any indication: http://youtu.be/1ooKsv_SX4Y

"By the way, if I sold all my property and gave the money to the poor to free myself up to pursue something I valued more highly, that would be an action quite consonant with Objectivism."

Amen, brother!

Yeah, he persevered by drinking himself to death while lamenting his lost life. Frank O'Conner is a guy who sacrificed his own loves in life for Rand's agenda. This is clear in the biographical literature about Rand. What Rand stated publicly about Frank O'Conner was a lie, an evasion of truth, perhaps the greatest "sin" in the Objectivist scheme of things.

Haha Patrick I like your attitude, but you shouldn't hold anyone so highly. I have all the respect for Rand and follow the philosophy to a T, it doesn't matter how she lived her life or the type of person she was, she had a good idea and I think she laid the foundation for something great. The best part about it is you can use her basics and the logic she proposed to find an answer to any moral issue, whether she herself agreed with the logic or not.

Very interesting... Jesus (the man) martyred himself to create a long-lasting, powerful reminder to accept forgiveness - or put another way, to relinquish guilt. However that reminder has been twisted over the years, I don't find it at odds with Objectivism. Interestingly, Hank betrayed his principles by handing over his patents because of the guilt he felt over their relationship and his feelings about how it reflected on their character. By doing so, he, effectively betrayed Dagny.

I'd wager that Ayn and Jesus would have an interesting discussion about the destructive power of guilt over tea... I wonder if she'd offer him a cigarette?

Personally I see two sides to this. On one hand, if you meet someone "better" as you put it and your heart calls out to that person instead of the one you are currently with, if your heart has suddenly or "irresistibly" moved, then it might even be an insult if you stay with the one you are with at the moment. No one wants to be sacrified for, and no one wants love and commitment out of pity. On the other hand I believe one can make oneself immune to such movements of the heart: there is a selfish interest to be gained from commitment. It is a powerful thing to take one's life in one's hands in the deciding moment of committing to another person, but doing so can have its rewards and one among them is not needing to worry about "what-ifs" even if you meet someone else whom you like. I even see a legitimate path in between these two, where you are in a relationship and you meet someone new, but you can't be sure because you don't fully know the new person yet; in that case I think it's okay to take some time and stay with the person you are with even though you are having doubts, you may even owe it to the person you are with to stay until the doubts clear or else coalesce on the decision to leave, one way or another. In summary I think the intensity of commitment is something left to the individual. It is also possible to have a sense of how committed your partner is to you even if you don't discuss it explicitly, and if your partner is less committed than you are then you willfully pursue the relationship at your own risk. I think Hank knew Dagny was a bird he couldn't keep, but the time they did have meant everything to him.

The heart is a powerful thing, and even though it can place us in difficult situations, it also inspires us to the integrity that honors both ourselves and the others we care for.

The rightness and sanctity of property is clearly stated in the Mosaic Law, which came along a bit before Ayn Rand. So, that is not a new idea at all. From what we know of Ayn Rand's broken relationships with just about all her friends and colleagues (with the pathetic exception of Leonard P.), as reported by Barbara Branden, one may conclude that Rand's view of love, and her understanding of love, was seriously lacking. And, I have in my letters file something from Elaine Kalberman that clearly reveals that Rand had no real patience with critical thinking. She was, in her own way, a totalitarian herself and yes, she destroyed Frank O'Conner and lied about him on the dedication page of Atlas Shrugged. This is not to say that she did not possess a mesmerizing brilliance, or that "Atlas Shrugged" is not a downright prophetic novel. I acknowledge all of that, although I am one of a small minority, I think, who thinks that as far as literature is concerned, "We the Living" is her best work.

By the way, if I sold all my property and gave the money to the poor to free myself up to pursue something I valued more highly, that would be an action quite consonant with Objectivism.

Not all that enlightening, khalling. What about Rand's understanding of Evolution do you disagree with? As far as patents go, I think a person has a right to make money from their own ideas. I oppose, however, people who use their wealth to hold back others with better newer ideas. That said, no genius is ever lost. The harder you hold them back, the more explosive their effect when it hits the market.

well, patrick, first of all, I am not a christian.
Rand on Evolution. I disagree. Her non commitment to well established and powerful scientific theory was wrong.
Rand's ethical system is based in the understanding of evolution!
let's turn it around as long as you're worried about false Objectivists holding the movement back? Where do you stand on patents?

I'd say that above all else, Rand believed in the pursuit of a fully integrated philosophy of life. Any relationship not fully supporting such a pursuit would put "feelings" above "rationality", and therefore be less than ideal - something to be traded up, to be blunt.

I don't call it "blasphemy," but we can only discuss it if you'll express specifically what you disagree about.

glad you liked it. but it is important to note her husband did not just stray. we should have said *SPOILER*

I'm not a Christian, but neither do I agree with absolutely every word Rand spoke and wrote. If that's blasphemy, so be it.