Re: Re: Materialistic Mamas
Jun 26, 1998 08:45 PM
by Annette Rivington
> You are absolutely right regarding my error in citing the right book - the
> scene I am referring to was in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, not ATLAS SHRUGGED. Thanks
> for helping me clarify.
Thanks Kym, for letting me know that. I thought that's what you meant
but, as I am not fully psychic (yet), couldn't be sure.
> Rand does clearly insinuate, through Dominique, that women - especially
> strong ones - are still always seeking fulfillment via "strong" men - even
> if it involves violence.
She sure does, with powerful literary skill! Once I read it, I never
sought fulfillment in that manner again (despite my mother's
> in Rand's philosophy that would condemn me killing my neighbor. Rand may
> not have really thought that way herself, but her written theory leaves that
> option wide open.
WADR then, if you expand/exptrapolate what she said to include this
option, it then becomes *your* philosophy, not hers.
Precisely why I am ONLY interested in reading EXACTLY what Buddha said,
not what thousands of others after him say he said, or explain what he
meant when he said what he said.
> She claims there are differences between natural disasters and social
> disasters - people worthy of help in some horrendous situations, but not in
> others. Rand assumes that those who are poor are there because of some kind
> of choice or personal laziness, and therefore, the best one can do is help
> them as minimally as possible. I heartily disagree.
Oh lord, shark infested waters.....
(but oh so pertinent in these troubled times)
My read on it is.......
People chose to be where they are. For instance, if you chose to stay
in an area to which drought and famine arrives and furthermore do
nothing to prevent yourself from experiencing a slow painful death from
starvation, you live with the consequences. (One of the reasons I am
trying to tread the Druid path...."I make MY bed, I lie in it".)
If I "give" to you any more help than normal philanthropic behaviour to
minimize your suffering, you remain in the situation but are now worse
off because you are dependent on me and my circumstances (or vagaries of
If I give assistance to you to the detriment of my ability to maintain
my own resources and personal satisfaction, two people are now worse
If I give to you and you become comfortable, but we get embroiled in a
power, domination thing, we are both worse off once again.
If you chose to move but the borders are closed, your responsibility is
to use your genius to solve the problem, not to beg me to let you in.
My memory can be poor and selective (S), but I do not remember reading
of or making the inference of destroying anyone or anything except in
> Rand also, if I recall correctly, never addressed what it means when a human
> performs an act for its own sake. A person may find no pleasure or meaning
> or happiness in wiping someone's running nose - but one can perform the
> action out of the pure sake of simply making another person more
> comfortable. People often do things for nothing more than the sake of doing
> such things - the world could not function if such acts were not performed -
> yet Rand seems to find no place for it in her theory.
In Rand's philosophy, a person NEVER performs an act "for its own
sake". In her world, this would be illogical, unrealistic, and would
lead to chaos. For her there is no such thing as "making another person
more comfortable". One's comfort comes from oneself and one makes,
creates one's own existance within the "natural" laws. Very definitely
not opposed to what is natural, scientific, effective,
> Rand advocates seeing the world only from one point of view: your own.
> Way too teeny a world for me.
And I believe she would have been honoured to shake your hand, in
recognition of a strong woman who states her case and follows her own
judgement without attempting to coerce, manipulate or cut down another.
Nice debating with you Kym.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application