armor99

My english teacher in High School.... I remember that one day in class he gave us a long winded explaination about what makes a "great work" of literature. It had to be over a certain age, a certain style, 100 or so academics had to vote on it etc. So I raised my hand and I disagreed with him. He was totally taken aback, and smugly asked... So what do I think makes a piece of literature great? Well I view a piece of literature like any other work of art. A painting, a sculture, etc. Therefore that art work has exactly one person in all of the world to prove itself to.... and that would be me. I and I alone have the right and ability to dertermine for myself what is great, or what is poor. It is merely an opinion if Romeo and Juliet is the best play ever written, or Crime and punishment is "fit" to be reading. And I honestly do not really care if 1000 of the worlds most learned people might come to the same conclusion.... only I can say for myself what I consider to be a piece of amazing artistry. Well that was about it for him.... this teacher just about lost it. He was so angry I could not believe it.... like I had done some horrible injustice to him. For years I could not understand why he was so angy. And only after reading about objectivism did I understand why. For him.... literature was a religion. An opinion that was absolute fact to him. So solid in his mind, that the very idea of him being wrong made him freak out. Zealotry is the one and only true enemy of reason... and I showed him that on that day. It made me proud.

I think this is one of the hardest concepts that most people have to come to grips with in Objectivist philosophy. Now please do not get me wrong. There are several benefits to being a part of a religious group. It can help give you a sense of community, of belonging, and as a social event base. Some of the teachings of religion are not bad.... and some are even good rules to follow. But the central idea of religion.. (i.e worshipping an omnipotent being) is completly contrary to objectivist philosophy. To start.... the very definition of religion is anti-logic or reasoning. Religion asks you to believe what you cannot hear, touch, see, or sense in any way. Where objectivism relys on ONLY the senses that man has to be able to understand reality. I have talked to many engineers who are religious and it always strikes me as curious that they can be so logical and rational thinking in their work, and yet if you wrap the most impossible theories in the cloak of "religion" then somehow it is just fine. I can remember watching two people arguing over religion and who was right. The argument went on for an hour or so.... I just could not resist, so I went over and posed the following question to the both of them. "If (and I pointed to one man) you changed your current argument to vanilla ice cream is the best, and you (pointed to the other man) changed yours to chocolate ice cream is the best.... would this argument basically be about the same? Neither of them could understand what I was talking about. The fact is that they were arguing an opinion.... something that cannot be proven. And that with no basis in fact or reality to back it up, the argument was doomed to go no where from the very beginning. And why exactly do most people... even very logical rational ones hold on to ideas that on some level they "know" cannot be true? The answer is simple..... fear. I know this personally because I feel that fear as much as any man might. What happens if I die and find out I am wrong, and I will be judged and punished. Then I can only say this.... I would think that an omnipotent being would want me to use all of the abilities that I was created with. And that if I was not expected to use my powers of logical thinking and reasoning to the fullest extent, then I should not have been created being self concious. That will be my only defense.... and I hope that it will be good enough. Just my thoughts...

Hello everyone, I am lucky enough to have recently stumbled onto this forum. I am just beginning my journey into Ayn Rand's work, but I saw this question posed and felt the need to reply.... What is greatness??? Is it what others think of you and your work? Do we do what we do in life, so that other men can gaze at us and say... "Wow... that man is great..." No.... certainly not! We live for ourselves. The highest moral act that any man can achieve, is to rise to the highest apex that his own rational mind can take him. Not everyone has the brain power to be a scientist, or the muscle mass to be a body builder, or the agility to be a gymnist. But we ALL have areas in our lives that we can excel in. I would say that the greatest sadness in life is not living up to whatever potential that you might have. Achieving greatness is possible for anyone as long as they maximize what is within their potential of doing. Greatness is a benchmark we can only hold up to ourselves.... and setting that benchmark any lower then our full potential will only bring misery. I once had a boss that asked me to "do the best I can do"... Free of distractions, or limits on money or time. I asked him only one question.... "Are you sure???"... He was confused and said.. "Well yes... why would I be unsure". And I answered..... "Because you are about to see a force unleashed that has rarely been seen before.... a man willing to put his full potential to solving a problem" He look a bit scared..... as he should be....