[Rand And Paterson]

If you want to know more about their relationship I recommend The Woman and the Dynamo: Isabel Paterson and the Idea of America, by Stephen Cox

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?

[Rand And Paterson]

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.

[Plagiarism]

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.

[Plagiarism]

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.

While I have completed my paper on my own without having to directly cite any outside material as I said I would in class, I have realized that I am not the originator of many of the ideas that I present.  It would be dishonest and academically unacceptable for me to not cite Ayn Rand for her ideas on causality and ethics, which I have only briefly presented in my paper.

I tell you this because on my previous paper, which I also cited Rand, you wrote in the margin: "Rand is a crank, why are you citing her?"  While I understand and have learned from many of your criticisms on my previous paper, such as the inclusion of difficult and esoteric terminology and the fact that much of my paper was taken up by reference.  Yet, this is not the case with the paper I wrote today.  As I have already stated, I have written it entirely without direct citation, unlike the previous paper.  I cannot help but think that if I were to cite the Genesis story, you would not write "Moses is a crank" in the margin.  I am not implying that you graded with bias, but I am asking you whether or not my citations will come to you as a problem.  Will the paper be graded without your evaluation of my sources, and instead on the nature of the paper and its argument?

I think that my paper is significanly different from my last in that it is much easier to comprehend and follow, and will not suffer from many of the inflictions as my previous.  The only issue that will be similar to last will be my citations.

[Plagiarism]

I would say that a godless universe is amoral and impersonal. But, perhaps, you have a context in mind that isn't clear here.

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?

[Plagiarism]

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.