stephen_speicher Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 So how is a rational Objectivist's admiration for John Galt fundamentally different from a rational Hindu's admiration for Krishna ? Krishna's Bhagavad Gita teaches suppression of the individual and devotional service to God; Galt's speech teaches rational self-interest. If the Hindu is actually rational, he is so in other areas of his life, not in his devotion to God. For the Objectivist, there is no contradiction between his rationality, and the nature of his admiration. That you do not readily grasp the difference between the two, is further reason to question why you persist in calling yourself an Objectivist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 WLoE - your definition of what is real and what is not real is obviously wrong, but why don't we focus on this for a second - as it is the root of your entire approach. What IS your definition of "real"? And why do you think that fantasy is inherently dishonest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 WLoE, is love real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Ladies and gentlemen, you are being trolled by WorthyLover. Why do so many people here insist on feeding the trolls. I have to agree. I'm having a hard time believing this is a serious question, but even if it is why bother responding to something so absurd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramKatori Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Right. So how is a rational Objectivist's admiration for John Galt fundamentally different from a rational Hindu's admiration for Krishna ? Easy: Hindus think Krishna actually existed. Similarly, Christians do not think Jesus was a fictional character. Objectivists know that John Galt is fictional. This is a crucial difference. But.... a few (more modern) Hindus do think that Krishna was not a real person, but a fictional hero. Is there a difference between their admiration for Krishna and an Objectivists admiration for John Galt. In one sense, no. Both are types of admiration for fictional characters who epitomize one's values. Ofcourse in the sense of what values are epitomized, there is a huge difference. Still not sure what your point is? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be implying that Objectivists think that Joihn Galt exists in the same sense as traditional Hindus think Krishna exists (or in which traditional Christians think Jesus existsed). Have you really met any such "objectivist"? If so, you will not learn anything about Objectivism from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Poppycock Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 If this was my forum I would have already banned WorthyLoverOfExistence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorthyLoverOfExistence Posted October 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 John Galt *is* the concretization of the Objectivist ethics projected through a specific scope: the ideal man within the setting of AS. The unreality of 7 is equally "obvious". There is no such thing, there is no evidence that it actually exists or existed. I think I got it. Aristotle named the principle when he talked about literature being in some sense more important than history. The values we derive from reading about Galt are not from Galt, they are the potentialities of actual reality. Galt, being unreal, can have no value, but because he was created by Rand as man "can be and ought to be", he represents and brings to mind real possibilities, which do have value. Krishna, on the other hand, or trolls or most fantasy creations, represent more of a "mystical invention", as opposed to things as they "could be and ought to be". What they bring to mind is an escape from the potentialities of reality, not a focus on them. So Galt as a fictional character only gets indirect admiration. Rand gets the admiration for her skill in creating him as she did. The honest way to derive value from Galt is to allow his story to help one to be aware of how one's life, friends, and self approach it as an ideal, and motivates one to see to it that they do. The dishonest way would be to continuously condemn one's life, friends, and self for "not living up" to that ideal, and to use this as an "excuse" to demotivate one from doing anything about it. It's easier for Galt to serve the honest role than the dishonest one ; it's easier for fantasy to serve the dishonest role than the honest one, but both can be (mis)used in either way, depending on one's intent - to focus on reality, or to escape from it. Galt is like a telescope, that we use to bring positive aspects of reality more into focus; Krishna is like a kaleidescope that we use to distract us from reality as such, both the positive and the negative aspects. Neither device is the (dis)value itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
source Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 I consider his unreality to be pretty obvious. There is no such person, there is no evidence of his having actually existed. I think asserting that he is real is the positive assertion, so the onus would be on you to prove it. Who was the most mysterious character in Atlas Shrugged? John Galt. A is A. John Galt exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorthyLoverOfExistence Posted October 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Who was the most mysterious character in Atlas Shrugged? John Galt. A is A. John Galt exists. It might be interesting to argue whether the John Galt I know is the same as the one you know, but if you truly think he exists, then I see not point in arguing about it...but could you ask him how the heck he got that motor to work ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 It might be interesting to argue whether the John Galt I know is the same as the one you know, but if you truly think he exists, then I see not point in arguing about it...but could you ask him how the heck he got that motor to work ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Umm can someone rename this thread, or otherwise remove it from the main page? I find it offensive to see the thread's title, loudly proclaiming a rather ridiculous and insulting charge, every time I visit oo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Umm can someone rename this thread, or otherwise remove it from the main page? I find it offensive to see the thread's title, loudly proclaiming a rather ridiculous and insulting charge, every time I visit oo.net. Done. I'm going to stop this thread because it is dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Krishna, on the other hand, or trolls or most fantasy creations, represent more of a "mystical invention", as opposed to things as they "could be and ought to be". What they bring to mind is an escape from the potentialities of reality, not a focus on them. What do you mean? Trolls are definitely real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts