Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Schtank

Rand Quote: It's not me who will die, it's the world that will

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LydiaMay said:

Think (remember thoughts ARE creative) about what you are saying. 

That you can create does not mean that there is a creator of the universe, or even just a creator of man. Creating an idea totally different than consciously making reality itself, or establishing existence.

You seem to be a little unsure about Rand thinks about knowledge, and about a spirit or soul. She speaks of a spirit metaphorically. She focuses on how you live your life. There's no soul, in her view, that goes past your body or lives on. So if/when she says "I do not die, my body does" she'd mean that she'd have no way to know she died; she would not be conscious, as if she simply went to sleep.

But I don't think she said the words you remember. I checked the Mike Wallace and Donahue interviews. The actual quote you are looking for is in the video posted earlier.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first paragraph shows me you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do.  As an artist, it is easier for me to grasp that concept because it starts in my mind and because I have a body, it gives me the ability to create that vision into existence.  It is a challenge because it is dimensional art that is sometimes difficult to assemble.  But that is not limited to tangible art.  My friend in real estate considers herself to be an artist when she gets creative with financing to put a workable deal together to help put a client in a house they want.  Without thinking, it does not materialize.  

Rand DID say "I do not die"  you interpret it one way, I another.  I like Rand but I have my own brain so if it is not in align with your interpretation of what she said, so be it.  As you can tell from one clip, most of the audience did not think the one gal was rude to Rand, but I picked it up immediately.  It was a slam to Rand, the way she said it.  I did not even have to think about it, yet they were outraged that she came to that conclusion.  It just shows how people think in different ways.  You may understand one concept that I may not, and the same applies to some concepts I understand but are foreign to you.

Much like the embryo that finally passes through the birth canal, and due to the pain, blood, etc., they probably think they are dying till they actually enter this phase of existence.  I believe it is much like that for us as we discard this body that helps us carry out our choices/thoughts in life, we pass on to a new existence which NO ONE can say yay or nay because we have NOT experienced that phase.  We can speculate all we want but until we go through the process of leaving this body that encumbers us, none of us know for sure.  We can say "perhaps" to one another.  No point in arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LydiaMay said:

Without thinking, it does not materialize.  

I agree, but thinking isn't separate from the body.

(Rand would agree with me, here are some examples)

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/soul-body_dichotomy.html

2 hours ago, LydiaMay said:

Rand DID say "I do not die"

She didn't, I checked. You misremembered. I'm trying to be helpful.

2 hours ago, LydiaMay said:

I like Rand but I have my own brain so if it is not in align with your interpretation of what she said, so be it.

Sure, so I'm telling you what's different and why you are mistaken at least on Rand's thoughts. What she did say was based on a poetic phrase, and her elaborations in other interviews shows she was always careful to say that religious  type quotes she mentions are meant in metaphorical way. You may interpret the words how you want or find different value in the words she said, but it's not what she meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LydiaMay said:

 Your idea of logic is NOT logical to me. 

LOL, you're using a whole paragraph of standard rhetorical logic to say that logic of that type is bull, and your faith trumps it :) 
 

If that were true, what's there to talk about? Your views are your faith and mine are mine, and sharing views is purely academic interest, of no real value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google tells me that Rand used this phrase often throughout her life, and you can watch her say it in one of the old interviews where she's wearing blue. So, use Google. But, it's outrageous to think she was acknowledging a supernatural existence. It would be like believing one of those spliced clip videos that has Obama "saying" random nonsense. Rand probably liked the phrase *because* it seemed to go against her views at first. It got people thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LydiaMay said:

 We can speculate all we want but until we go through the process of leaving this body that encumbers us, none of us know for sure.  We can say "perhaps" to one another.  No point in arguing.

And yet, you expend a great deal your creative energy (and time) making a pointless argument. Obviously, you hold metaphysical convictions that conflict with Objectivism. Ayn Rand did not contradict herself. If you watch the Tom Snyder interview to the end, she uses a religious reference in closing: "God bless America." Immediately prior to that statement, she clarifies her use of the term, God, as meaning: all that is good. Clearly, she did not always express herself literally, although she seems to be very conscientious of her choice of words. There is no "perhaps" in regard to Ayn Rand's convictions.

10 hours ago, LydiaMay said:

Your first paragraph shows me you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do.  As an artist, it is easier for me to grasp that concept because it starts in my mind and because I have a body, it gives me the ability to create that vision into existence.  It is a challenge because it is dimensional art that is sometimes difficult to assemble.  But that is not limited to tangible art.  My friend in real estate considers herself to be an artist when she gets creative with financing to put a workable deal together to help put a client in a house they want.  Without thinking, it does not materialize. 

As a person of independent thought, you may interpret information, perceptions, sensations, or the random fulfillment of wishes any way you so desire, but that does not make your interpretations matters of fact. Selling a house or making a financial contract may very well be creative, but it is not art. Not by Objectivist definition. You could say that there is an art to installing PVC piping, or landing an airplane, or folding your laundry. You could say that there is an art to picking pockets, or picking up a one-night-stand date, or stacking a deck of cards. The creative process is certainly applied to all of these examples. Some require human intuition. But it's not art. And you can say that it is, just as you could say: A is non-A. But merely saying so doesn't make it a matter of fact. So, in response to your statement: "you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do," you are certainly correct. Objectivists require facts and evidence to support their interpretations. The distinction between your perception of reality, from the Objectivist understanding of reality, is defined as: the Primacy of Consciousness, versus, the Primacy of Existence. If you have any further interest in the works of Ayn Rand, you may do your own research. But it seems to me that that would be as much a waste of your time, as you have stated that you believe in a multitude of "existences" and that all metaphysical interpretations are mere speculation. Score one for Immanuel Kant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

The strings of the harp return to silence. That is so not only for each individual, but for the species, and eventually for all life in the solar system, and eventually farther, for all life-organization and intelligence-organization in the universe. Stardust to stardust.

“When we are here, death is not come. When death is come, we are not here.” –Lucretius

Taking a third-person perspective on oneself, one can be in advance conscious of one’s death, one’s full stop. In the first-person perspective, full ending of any object of consciousness whatsoever is collapse of both together, conscious process and object. I like better the third-person perspective, which is the only perspective with real interest for one's endpoint. Value is here on this earth beyond one's own life. Look to here and to the tomorrows of here all through one’s own last look at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ending of your life, your consciousness, is, for all intents and purposes from your own perspective and limited awareness,

"the end of the world", the end of all things. 

 

"When he died he would not end. The world would end."

-American author Don DeLillo, from book "Cosmopolis" 
 

 

 

Edited by Rachel McLaren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×