About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From the fourth page (I'm not reading further):

"For the best example of the contradictions and limits of rational thought and self-reliance, one has to look no further than the life of Ayn Rand. She wrote that “the essence of femininity is hero worship – the desire to look up to a man.” But she married Frank O’Connor, an aspiring actor she met during the crucifixion scene on the set of Cecil B. De Mille’s “King of Kings” (where both were working as extras) “because, she said, “he was beautiful.” O’Connor, who sometimes introduced himself, perhaps with bitterness, as “Mr. Rand,” depended intellectually and financially on his wife throughout their fifty-year marriage. He kept busy with home decorating and gardening, and particularly loved to cultivate and arrange flowers. In his later years, he picked up painting, although it was too late for him to become more than a very talented amateur, and drinking, at which he proved professionally adept.

The final soap-opera–worthy flourish to their marriage came when Rand created a love triangle that closely resembled those in her own fiction. "

 
Who unleased the tin-pot Tooheys to write this stuff?
 
"An interesting article," huh?! That seems a tacit recommendation of this rebellion of someone who crawls on her belly against Ayn Rand's height. 
Articles like this should go in the war room as projects demanding letters to the editor, not be endorsed as "interesting."
 
Again, who wrote the stories that let loose these belly crawlers to put such digs into Ayn Rand, so that we have to write defence letters?


Post 1

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 5:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew, it is good to see you still alive and kicking these days.  How have you been?

Post 2

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 3:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Busy as hell - investment banking work is tough. Managed to get out on the harbour for a sail in beautiful weather tonight though and it was glorious. Boy did I need that.

I hope you're well.

I'll give you a call some time. I call people from my US travels every now and then and we can catch up in more detail over the blower.

AB.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 5:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What a really cool magazine this In Character,  whose aim is "to illuminate the nature and power of the everyday virtues — and how these virtues shape our vision of the good life." The magazine has three issues per year. Each issue is devoted to a single virtue. The virtue for the current issue, which contains the article on Rand, is Self-Reliance.
 
Here is an excerpt from another article in the current issue, "The American VirtueA Reading List of Classics on Self-Reliance," by George Scialabba. He remarks of Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance" that
it is almost a tapestry of familiar quotations on the subject: “Trust thyself; every heart vibrates to that iron string.” “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.” “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Well-worn wisdom; still, it’s a mistake to think one has ever gotten to the bottom of Emerson. Settle into a comfortable familiarity with him, and you soon find yourself uncomfortably surprised. He may sound vaporously high-minded on occasion (especially if you’re not reading carefully), but he was acidly unsentimental and determinedly uncategorizable. In “Self-Reliance” he blasts bleeding hearts on one page: “Do not tell me, as a good man did today, of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong.” This sounds like a nineteenth-century version of Ayn Rand. Yet a few pages later: “A [wise] man hates what he has if he sees it is accidental — came to him by inheritance or gift ... then he feels that it does not belong to him, has no root in him, and merely lies there because no revolution or robber” — or sensible estate tax, he might have added — “takes it away.” Likewise, in his journals — no less valuable than his essays — Emerson bursts out alarmingly: “I hate vulnerable people.” A Social Darwinist before his time? But only a few pages away: “Our good friend [the banker] speaks of ‘the solid portion of the community,’ meaning of course the sharpers. I feel, meantime, that those who succeed in ... civilized society are beasts of prey. It has always been so.”

Like Emerson, Thoreau was a theorist of nonconformism, of moral self-reliance; and he was even more of a practitioner, experimenting with a solitary life in the woods, going to jail rather than paying taxes to support a war he thought immoral, defending the race traitor John Brown. Probably everyone has read and thrilled to Walden as an adolescent (at least I hope so) and later condescended to it, along with most of his or her other youthful enthusiasms. It is well worth revisiting in one’s mellow maturity. For one thing, it takes a practiced ear to appreciate Thoreau’s prose style, in which apparent simplicity conceals art. Even more important, it takes a lot of unhappy experience before his seeming platitudes penetrate our thick heads. “Simplify, simplify” — but only very wise people know how much they can do without before wasting many years doing with. “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” Young people read this sentence, assent passionately, and forget; grown-ups are pierced to the quick. “If one listens to the faintest but constant suggestions of his genius, which are certainly true, he sees not to what extremes, or even insanity, it may lead him; and yet that way, as he grows more resolute and faithful, his way lies.” More often than not, the still, small voice of our genius requires many decades to get our attention.

 


Post 4

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 5:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is why did survival training many years ago - not to run away from civilization, but to experience the essence, the Crusoe fundamentals, instilling the self-confidence, so could better appreciate civilization and more easily deal with it......

Post 5

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen,

Thanks for the link. It looks like a gem. I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed Thoreau in my twenties.

Re: "More often than not, the still, small voice of our genius requires many decades to get our attention."

Being alone helps, perhaps is a requirement.

Post 6

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Being alone helps, perhaps is a requirement.

Quite true - else it gets lost in the midst of all the noise.....


Post 7

Friday, October 26, 2012 - 2:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The link to the article that is subject of this thread has become obsolete. The updated one is here.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.