npeters

Thank you. However, I am more interested in their particular debate over the idea of God. Both are profoundly intelligent, and I would be thrilled to peruse their arguments amongst each other. Will I find anything of that nature in this book, or just some random details about how she was friends with Ayn Rand? Also, can anybody confirm that there are letters to Paterson in Rand's published journals?

Ayn Rand, from what I have read, learned virtually everything about politics from Isabel Paterson. I have also read that they had a falling out over the idea of God and religion. But, most importantly, supposedly there are some letters out there that illustrate their debate and disagreements. Does anybody have any idea where I can find these? I havn't read the journals or letters, so maybe they're in that book or something. Any help is appreciated.

Well, I must say that this ended up much better than I had previously thought it would. I got a very rational response to my email. He had to backpedal a lot of comments he made on my previous paper, stating that he should have 'gone back and crossed it out but forgot'. But he told me it would not be a problem. Score for Ayn Rand, Objectivist ideas, and academic freedom.

I agree with the general sentiment here, that it would be dishonest and academically unacceptable for me to not cite Rand. Therefore, I have prepared the following email, being very careful to not come off as rude or presumptious. I do however, kiss his butt with regard to my previous paper. It is my belief that I was graded incredibly unfairly, but for the sake of being on good terms with him I have decided I would just agree. For the record, I was not entirely pleased with my first paper, anyway.

I argue that a godless universe is personal in the sense that one's life does not then belong to God, as is the case in many religions. I also explain how many religious views place man on a chessboard, forever in flux of the clutches of God and Satan. Only a godless universe allows life to exist as an end in itself, for it's own personal means and desires. As for the universe being amoral, I explain how inanimate matter is amoral because it does not face the alternative of life and death. I go on to explain how only living beings do, and that morality is a fact inherent in being, not a supernatural construct. Make sense in that context?

I have just finished writing a paper titled "The Causal, Personal, and Moral Godless Universe" in which I use the Objectivist theory of Causality to refute the idea that without God the universe is chaotic, and I have briefly described the basis of Objectivist Ethics as well. I have done so all without consulting any of the major works, just by my own memory from the study I have done. Would it still be considered plagiarism for me to not cite works? The reason I am slightly worried about this is that I cited ITOE on my last paper for this class and received "Rand is a crank, why are you citing her?" in the margin. I believe my grade suffered because of it and many other silly reasons, so I am being careful this time. But I had to write on this topic because of how great Objectivism refutes the theist argument that without God, the universe is chaotic, impersonal, and amoral. I couldn't imagine writing on something less invigorating.