Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:450890E7.9090406
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Kaos wrote:
>> on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:10:03 -0400, Invid Fan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1157905323.254724.95550@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill
>>>Wayne <HWayne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>No different then getting it from a book. Suppose Ayn Rand had skipped
>>>the book and done The Fountainhead as a movie. Would the ideas in it
>>>have less meaning?
>>
>>
>> Is it possible for it to have less meaning in the first place?
>> (Outside of an objectivist "our groupthink isn't groupthink at all"
>> camp, that is...)
>
> Your above comment shows you have either not read, or have not
> understood, Rand's philosophy. It is easily possible to show that her
> philosophy has FLAWS -- basically the same flaws pure Communism has,
> in a dark mirror -- but dismissing it so casually indicates a failure
> to grasp it at all.
>
"I still believe that Rand was a great philosopher. But I am ****fting
toward the position that her greatness is as an unhappy example of
inadvertent folly."
http://home.ca.inter.net/~grantsky/re-evaluating.html
The most common description I see of Rand (other than from people who
sound
like over-excited puppies, that is) is "cult leader." Not someone whose
opinions I really care about.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
|
