A.A

I didn't know anything about the doctor, other than that he had been a supporter of people's rights to end their life or to ask a medical expert to help them- a cause which I support. I just watched an intereview with him on Fox News (given in 2009), and I am not sure what to make of his views. In part 3 he mentions Ayn Rand and her warning against the rise of Fascism in America, and generally lays out an individualistic world-view. However, in part 2 of that interview he expresses a rather sad view of life- in general, it seems, and not just the lives of the ill. He says things that make one conclude that he dosen't think that anyone's life is really worth living, because the downs are greater than the ups. That is a very un-Objectivist view, of course, and it sounds anti-life. That makes me wonder what his motive really was. How can one champion people's rights so ardently, going as far as risking jail, with that kind of sad a view of the meaning of life? Perhaps I am over-simplifying the matter, but that is my first reaction to this clip.

I sympathize with the above statement very much.

Strangelove, For the record, I would like to state that with my current understanding of Hobbes, I agree with your reading. I think that Hobbes's emphasis on the rationality of the human being was important and even revolutionary because it came from a non-religious (and possibly atheist) perspective. Some of the founding fathers of the United States, by the way, did not hold a view of human nature which was very different then Hobbes's. (Hamilton for instance)

This is a little less obvious than his no tolerance position on atheists; some scholars interpret it differently. So for argument's sake, let's assume he did mean that.

The quote came from here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...us_libertarians And about Locke's problem- Locke is also advocating no tolerance for Catholics; you may think that his foundation for that (the fact that Catholics yield to the Pope) is much more reasonable (surely in the 17th century) than his presumption about atheists. And yet, under a proper free system, it would also be wrong to forbid Catholics their beliefs, would it not? Not because you have any sympathy for Catholics, and even though you perhaps think that people who practice Catholicism are immoral by the nature of their choice, it is still their *right* to believe in immoral things, is it not? And that's why I ask if there isn't something amoral in a proper political system. (I am not touching the Libertarian ideology per se, because I don't have sufficient knowledge of it, and also not the time to discover; I am not an American citizen, so I don't have a practical reason to think about that)

Here: (John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, Latin and English text revised by Mario Montuori, The Hauge: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963, p. 93) As to: From that, I can infer that an enormous percentage of the population has to be rational and moral, in order to establish even a partly- free society. Is that what you think?

In his Letter Concerning Toleration . I'll bring the exact quote later.

While denouncing the Libertarian movement, Ayn Rand wrote the following: (Emphasis added) My point is not to discuss Libertarianism, but rather to ask: Would an Objectivist political program not be "amoral" in some sense? For instance, would it not allow immoral behavior such as advocating religious ideas, simply because it's the legal right of the person advocating? When I read John Locke's stance that atheists should not enjoy political freedom, my first problem with that was not that I'm an atheist (which is true enough), but that Locke would not grant me the freedom to exercise my beliefs- unless they harm someone else's rights- even if they conflict with his own moral conviction. Do you think that from an Objectivist point of view, there is something wrong in that line of thought?

Most certainly. This is a very important fact to remember. By the way, in N. Branden`s Judgement Day he writes that in AR`s funeral, an order came not to let either of the Brandens enter; so you understand Rand`s (and Rand`s heirs) attitude towards them. Rand`s post-Atlas depression (of about two years) is confirmed by Rand herself, as shown in The Passion of Ayn Rand`s Critics.

Thanks everyone, but since no one here seems to have a knowledgeable solution, I'll say that my own guess is that AR said what she did in 1959 because she was afraid for her remaining relatives (her sister Nora, for instance), and preferred that no one knew that she could obtain information about Russia. I just wondered if the answer appears in some biography that someone here has read. (Jesus, isn't there some decent comprehensive biography of Rand, authorized or unauthorized? I mean, I don't think that many people will disagree with her estimation as an interesting and important enough figure... Just a little rant)

In Letters of Ayn Rand, I read that sometime in the 1940`s, AR learned that her parents had died during World War II (or shortly before). In her interview in the Mike Wallace show, in 1959, she says that she does not know what has happened to them. Does anyone know the reason for this discrepancy? (I can guess, I am just interested if anyone knows for a fact) Thanks in advance.

It was nice. It was in a military-oriented room, just outside an actual military base, which was surprising. Dr Brook said the things that sound quite basic to me, but that need to be said these days because they have been forgotten- that the western world is in a war, and that in order to win, the west needs to remember what the values it is fighting for are. And the very basic fact that in a war there are casualties. That was the very basic gist of it. For a more detailed summery you can look here: http://israblog.nana.co.il/blogread.asp?bl...logcode=6763958 (Unlike Avi, I don't know much about military strategy, so I prefer not to write about it- look at the comments too) It was very interesting to hear (as opposed to read) basic rational arguments such as these in a lecture.

Being a somewhat casual visitor to this forum for the past few months, I missed the chance to show some local-patriotism for the most prolific writer here of those currently living in Israel. So: Happy birthday!

Were you there?

Dagny wasn`t outright approached either; if memory serves me correctly, even after she had resigned, when Fransisco came to her cabin, he didn`t outright approach her to come with him (though being very emotional at that scene, he was close to doing so before getting her to admit that she should quit). The strikers`s method, I believe, was first making their candidates for strike come to the realization that they are "the guiltiest people in the world", that they are helping the looters, and only then approach them with the practical option of going on strike. Look at the number of times Fransisco approached Rearden, talked to him, and realized that he has not yet come to grasp the above realization. So Rearden did in fact choose not to except the premise that would have let him to the gulch.

In the library of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, arguably the most prestigious academic library in Israel, there are four books that concern AR (except for four that were written by her): Journals of Ayn Rand, Tara Smith`s Ayn Rand’s normative ethics : the virtuous egoist , David Kelley`s The contested legacy of Ayn Rand, and Jeff Walker`s The Cult of Ayn Rand. Four books, and this is one of them.

I plan on writing an academic paper about AR to a course on "books that made history". In the paper I intend to use Atlas Shrugged quotes to explain how revolutionary her philosophy was. My professor has almost no knowledge of AR; he had read The Fountainhead when he was a teenager, remembers it as quite childish and a pale copy of Nietzsche, and told me that he believed that in a hundred years, while everyone will know Nietzsche's name, no one will know AR`s. He agreed to my suggestion never the less, and he strikes me as an honest man who will; but his initial attitude makes me think I will have to substantiate AR`s influence on society better than I would have to for a professor with a different initial attitude. So my question is: Where are there good sources which indicate AR`s success and influence, that do not look like Objectivist pamphlets? Sources other than the ARI website, or OPAR? Thanks in advance for any possible help.

I have just finished reading the book, which I have read "in one breath". The book's great merit, of course, is the exposure of the Brandens. But I think that the second part, showing Rand`s private journals, also gives a great demonstration of the way a great mind such as Rand`s analyses "Branden". I write "Branden" in quotes because it is now known that the person she was analyzing was not the real Branden. But while being "duped" by the Brandens, Rand analyzed the mind of an honest person who has fallen into a terrible error, perhaps even corruption. I find it extremely helpful for the understanding of myself and others- more helpful, I must admit, than Rand`s articles speaking of abstract psychology. Probably because she had a higher motivation to help a person she considered her best friend- an Objectivist hero. And now, that I have finished reading the book, I intend to try and sell to people not just the defense of Ayn Rand, but as an example of the way a genius analyzed the mind of an honest and erronous man- however factitious he turned out to be.

After about two weeks-the bold word should have been "healthy".

Honestly, I can’t even guess; and I am not just talking about the question "how many Objectivists are there", but even on how many people interested in Objectivism there are. The number of people I have seen in the few forums I have actively or passively participated in were about twenty or so, no more (I think; maybe I`ll try to count later). But that really doesn’t say much about the people who don’t write in forums and advocate/ are interested in the philosophy, does it?

Hi Ifat, There is also an "Objectivism" blog, which discusses the blogger`s interpretation of the concept "Objectivism". http://israblog.nana.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=102337 If you are interested in reading the archives of a very prolific Objectivism forum that was closed, you can do it here: http://forums.ort.org.il/scripts/forum.asp?forum=178

Seeing Rand speak for the first time in my life was very interesting and exciting. I admit that like others I was a bit disappointed due to her "mellowness", but I think it's clear that this was the case due to three reasons: a. Her recent widowness. b. I don't know her medical history, but her voice and shakiness did not seem like the physical appearance of a wealthy woman. c. The show wasn't very "intellectual" in nature, I would say, and Miss Rand didn't have the chance to dill with a real argument against her. A note: I don't know Donahue (except for by name), but I hardly think he deserved Rand`s compliment near the end. I also think that his "humorous" remark regarding the defense her late husband would not want from her in heaven was extremely rude. This isn't something you say to a recent widow, even if you are religious and she is an atheist. P.s I remember seeing somewhere that Rand had once answered a woman that asked her if she was a leader of a cult: "young lady, I have been advocating individualism all my life. Common sense tells you that you cannot be a cult leader and an individualist; do you have common sense?" (A quote from memory from a few years back, but one that I remember quite vividly) Where was this?

I thought it would not be very nice to ask people to write lengthy quotes to me, and then just give them short thanks. So thanks again, the quotes helped a lot to clear my head, and to make me understand why Mill was not such a good and beneficial philosopher after all; although I admit I still ponder whether I agree with Rand and Peikoff about the assertion that at the bottom line he was harmful rather than useful. After all, many influential philosophers spoke very directly against liberty; to have a prominent philosopher speak in favor of freedom of speech with such zeal, even if for the wrong grounds- I am not sure historically that isn't a good think, even though undoubtedly Ayn Rand was much much better. In the referat I gave about Mill at the seminar, however, I felt more than ever the meaning of this icon- I explained Peikoff and Rand`s criticism extensively, and strengthened it with my own. The professor just ignored my entire criticism, and went on to enthusiastically support Mill because of my professor's zealous advocacy for academic freedom. A worthy cause, no doubt; but it doesn't mean he has to ignore Mill's epistemological shaky grounds (at best) for establishing freedom. No wonder that when my professor- a very classical liberal at spirit- started talking against mandatory public education (a view that is deemed very extreme in my country), one of the students immediately referred him to Mill's words on the subject, and my professor stuttered a bit.

Thank you both very much.

And I am originally from Tel-Aviv, currently residing in the students` dorms in Jerusalem.