Why did people vote for Obama the 2nd time?

[moralist]

Moral justice for me but not for thee?

Moral justice for everyone... because no matter what you choose to do, you will set into motion the consequences you deserve that will match what you chose.

And like all double edged truths... that cuts both ways.

Greg

[PDS]

"I don't know. You'd need to go ask the starving Haitian kid to find that out. Only he could relate to you the chain of events set into motion which put him on that garbage dump.

I only know by personal experience what is moral justice for me by the objective reality of getting the consequences I deserve from my own actions."

Now you're just clowning.

(one of my favorite movies, by the way... "Death to Smoochie" )

I refuse to believe you actually hold this view.

I'm ok with that. Different views are what make for interesting conversations. Although, if what you just said is true... then why are you arguing against a value you don't even believe I live by?

I can tell you are a fan of the glib response, but aren't you the least bit curious how how your term "just and deserved" applies to this situation, apart from whatever our young Haitian might have to say about his condition?

No. I'm not into fantasy. The Haitian kid is the only one with the last word on his situation, because he alone knows best the causal chain of events that put him where he is.

And, if the standard doesn't happen to apply to our young Haitian, isn't that something of a problem for your oft-stated worldview?

I didn't say he didn't. I only said that I have no idea as to the specific causal chain of events that put him wherever he is... and neither do you.

Ok. To sum up out two different views:

1. I know that we are personally responsible for the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our own actions.

2. You disagree with that, and refuse to believe I know that is true.

So that defines the difference between our two views.

Greg

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a straight up asshole. But just barely.

What makes you so special that you're not the Haitian kid on top of the garbage pile? Why did God bless you, and not him?

[moralist]

"I don't know. You'd need to go ask the starving Haitian kid to find that out. Only he could relate to you the chain of events set into motion which put him on that garbage dump.

I only know by personal experience what is moral justice for me by the objective reality of getting the consequences I deserve from my own actions."

Now you're just clowning.

(one of my favorite movies, by the way... "Death to Smoochie" )

I refuse to believe you actually hold this view.

I'm ok with that. Different views are what make for interesting conversations. Although, if what you just said is true... then why are you arguing against a value you don't even believe I live by?

I can tell you are a fan of the glib response, but aren't you the least bit curious how how your term "just and deserved" applies to this situation, apart from whatever our young Haitian might have to say about his condition?

No. I'm not into fantasy. The Haitian kid is the only one with the last word on his situation, because he alone knows best the causal chain of events that put him where he is.

And, if the standard doesn't happen to apply to our young Haitian, isn't that something of a problem for your oft-stated worldview?

I didn't say he didn't. I only said that I have no idea as to the specific causal chain of events that put him wherever he is... and neither do you.

Ok. To sum up out two different views:

1. I know that we are personally responsible for the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our own actions.

2. You disagree with that, and refuse to believe I know that is true.

So that defines the difference between our two views.

Greg

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a straight up asshole. But just barely.

Responses like that are an attempt to get the energy of an emotional reaction. But since I'm aware of this principle, you can't get what is not good for you to get, because I won't give to you what is not good for me to give.

What makes you so special that you're not the Haitian kid on top of the garbage pile? Why did God bless you, and not him?

The real question to ask yourself is:

Why do some people with every advantage in life devolve into indecent ugly angry bitter crud... while others with no advantage in life grow to bloom into beautifully decent happy human beings?

Greg

[Mikee]

Greg,

You don't believe in "there but for the grace of God go I" I think there is such a thing a luck, and some people are the victim of circumstance. Sometimes brains can be warped beyond the point of return however, charity can go only so far. My mother had emotional problems and was an alcoholic. When I was a small boy and hurt myself playing or whatever she'd tell me "That's God's punishment". I evidently had sinned in some way and gotten my retribution. She committed suicide when I was eight, she was about 36 I believe. If you believe that Nature and the Laws of Nature are your version of God, then if you neglect to pay attention or are ignorant of these laws you could call this inattentiveness or ignorance a "sin" against Nature and then of course you pay the consequences. But what about a person sleeping in their bedroom, an out of control car comes smashing through the house killing the person, or injures them requiring expensive treatment to recover. Perhaps they can't afford this treatment. Is charity okay? Or have they sinned and deserve to die? How, exactly, does your POV differ from my mothers?

Regarding the Haitian kids' POV, his "casual chain of events", what conclusions would you draw if you grew up in a jungle? Eat or be eaten? Why do you think it took many thousands of years for civilization to develop? Oh right, you believe God created the world a few thousand years ago, civilization didn't develop, God just revealed his law. Have you happened to have read "Seeing Voices" by Oliver Sacks? You might be interested in the story of the young man who didn't acquire any language at all until almost an adult and how he simply could not think barely beyond the moment, much like an animal, until he acquired language. If you are not exposed to concepts and how to think from birth, you simply will not be able to think in the terms that you take for granted. There is a reason it takes many years of nurturing to make a decent human. If you run across a person who hasn't learned important things, do you try to teach them, or do you condemn them to hell?

[PDS]

"I don't know. You'd need to go ask the starving Haitian kid to find that out. Only he could relate to you the chain of events set into motion which put him on that garbage dump.

I only know by personal experience what is moral justice for me by the objective reality of getting the consequences I deserve from my own actions."

Now you're just clowning.

(one of my favorite movies, by the way... "Death to Smoochie" )

I refuse to believe you actually hold this view.

I'm ok with that. Different views are what make for interesting conversations. Although, if what you just said is true... then why are you arguing against a value you don't even believe I live by?

I can tell you are a fan of the glib response, but aren't you the least bit curious how how your term "just and deserved" applies to this situation, apart from whatever our young Haitian might have to say about his condition?

No. I'm not into fantasy. The Haitian kid is the only one with the last word on his situation, because he alone knows best the causal chain of events that put him where he is.

And, if the standard doesn't happen to apply to our young Haitian, isn't that something of a problem for your oft-stated worldview?

I didn't say he didn't. I only said that I have no idea as to the specific causal chain of events that put him wherever he is... and neither do you.

Ok. To sum up out two different views:

1. I know that we are personally responsible for the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our own actions.

2. You disagree with that, and refuse to believe I know that is true.

So that defines the difference between our two views.

Greg

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a straight up asshole. But just barely.

Responses like that are an attempt to get the energy of an emotional reaction. But since I'm aware of this principle, you can't get what is not good for you to get, because I won't give to you what is not good for me to give.

What makes you so special that you're not the Haitian kid on top of the garbage pile? Why did God bless you, and not him?

The real question to ask yourself is:

Why do some people with every advantage in life devolve into indecent ugly angry bitter crud... while others with no advantage in life grow to bloom into beautifully decent happy human beings?

Greg

I'll answer your question after you first answer mine. Fair enough?

[anthony]

Mike: Good stuff - which kick-started some thoughts.

The basic question as I see it, is this:
Do we each get our 'just desserts' in life?
'Should' we?
That raises: Justice:- from what, or whom? By which standards? In what form?

I think most thoughtful youngsters grapple with this fundamental question, often their eventual answer influencing the rest of their lives. The two essential alternatives seem to be that you either get justice from God (by religious observance)- or justice from 'Society'.(Whatever that may be...)
In my case, I recall sensing intensely the injustice of men on men, and - already moving towards atheism - it put me well on the way to becoming a Socialist of sorts! Evidently, I hadn't even begun to think it out deeply enough; the 'third option' - which Rand's writing (when I arrived on it) made clear, hit me powerfully in its truthfulness. As you know, this is 'justice in reality'.

Roughly: Each individual's only authority is reality. His, is the final judgement on his existence. He is owed nothing by existence. However, and without guarantee, living in accord with its codes will bring rewards. His one major responsibility to others is the just acknowledgement or praise of their own striving to excellence - following from which, he should never impede their free choice to act as they see fit.

(End of Objectivism commercial break. ;))

Greg's philosophy (throughout, no matter my disagreement, I've appreciated his candour) looks like a rather strange mixture of these- but without the 'society': his belief in supernatural design and oversight; along with extreme personal self-responsibility and unreal self-determinism; along with the unreal causality of his life upon other people's lives.
His Nature-cum-God explications follow a notable line of scientists and thinkers, whom we've often discussed here. Like many thoughtfully searching religious people I've known, it appears an attempt to unite two irreconcilable aspects.
"Live right by God AND Reality, and you will reap the rewards" - in essence.

(I look forward to hearing Greg's own comment.)

Having said all that, what I finally take home from friends and acquaintances who have espoused approximately the same thing, is their explicit individuality and implicit individualism. That's gold in the bank in my view.

[moralist]

"I don't know. You'd need to go ask the starving Haitian kid to find that out. Only he could relate to you the chain of events set into motion which put him on that garbage dump.

I only know by personal experience what is moral justice for me by the objective reality of getting the consequences I deserve from my own actions."

Now you're just clowning.

(one of my favorite movies, by the way... "Death to Smoochie" )

I refuse to believe you actually hold this view.

I'm ok with that. Different views are what make for interesting conversations. Although, if what you just said is true... then why are you arguing against a value you don't even believe I live by?

I can tell you are a fan of the glib response, but aren't you the least bit curious how how your term "just and deserved" applies to this situation, apart from whatever our young Haitian might have to say about his condition?

No. I'm not into fantasy. The Haitian kid is the only one with the last word on his situation, because he alone knows best the causal chain of events that put him where he is.

And, if the standard doesn't happen to apply to our young Haitian, isn't that something of a problem for your oft-stated worldview?

I didn't say he didn't. I only said that I have no idea as to the specific causal chain of events that put him wherever he is... and neither do you.

Ok. To sum up out two different views:

1. I know that we are personally responsible for the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our own actions.

2. You disagree with that, and refuse to believe I know that is true.

So that defines the difference between our two views.

Greg

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a straight up asshole. But just barely.

Responses like that are an attempt to get the energy of an emotional reaction. But since I'm aware of this principle, you can't get what is not good for you to get, because I won't give to you what is not good for me to give.

What makes you so special that you're not the Haitian kid on top of the garbage pile? Why did God bless you, and not him?

The real question to ask yourself is:

Why do some people with every advantage in life devolve into indecent ugly angry bitter crud... while others with no advantage in life grow to bloom into beautifully decent happy human beings?

Greg

I'll answer your question after you first answer mine. Fair enough?

I already did.

You don't know what kind of person your garbage dump Haitian kid grew to become... and neither do I. So you're asking the wrong person. This is why you need to go talk directly with him if you want to find out for yourself.

Greg

[PDS]

But the question is not what kind of person he has or might become. The question is: do you consider his condition,at present, to be a product of "just and deserved" consequences this lad has set into motion. I am using your formulation here.

If you are going to claim that the only way to know this is to "go ask him"--as if this would actually reveal anything useful--then this is a punt, and you should just admit to it as such.

I am certain that you know it is not the kid's fault that he was born in a shithole, run by crooks for many centuries. What I want to know is whether you are claiming he "deserved" the condition he was born into, or that it is "just" according to your worldview.

I don't think this is a complicated question. I am not trying to win a debate with you. I am genuinely interested in how your worldview acomodates such situations.

[Selene]

PDS never fair catches - this could be quite a return...I am getting popcorn!

[moralist]

Greg,

You don't believe in "there but for the grace of God go I" I think there is such a thing a luck, and some people are the victim of circumstance. Sometimes brains can be warped beyond the point of return however, charity can go only so far. My mother had emotional problems and was an alcoholic. When I was a small boy and hurt myself playing or whatever she'd tell me "That's God's punishment". I evidently had sinned in some way and gotten my retribution. She committed suicide when I was eight, she was about 36 I believe. If you believe that Nature and the Laws of Nature are your version of God, then if you neglect to pay attention or are ignorant of these laws you could call this inattentiveness or ignorance a "sin" against Nature and then of course you pay the consequences. But what about a person sleeping in their bedroom, an out of control car comes smashing through the house killing the person, or injures them requiring expensive treatment to recover. Perhaps they can't afford this treatment. Is charity okay? Or have they sinned and deserve to die? How, exactly, does your POV differ from my mothers?

Regarding the Haitian kids' POV, his "casual chain of events", what conclusions would you draw if you grew up in a jungle? Eat or be eaten? Why do you think it took many thousands of years for civilization to develop? Oh right, you believe God created the world a few thousand years ago, civilization didn't develop, God just revealed his law. Have you happened to have read "Seeing Voices" by Oliver Sacks? You might be interested in the story of the young man who didn't acquire any language at all until almost an adult and how he simply could not think barely beyond the moment, much like an animal, until he acquired language. If you are not exposed to concepts and how to think from birth, you simply will not be able to think in the terms that you take for granted. There is a reason it takes many years of nurturing to make a decent human. If you run across a person who hasn't learned important things, do you try to teach them, or do you condemn them to hell?

Wow... Thanks for your thoughtful response. You made so many good points, I'd like to respond to each one at a time to do them proper justice.

You don't believe in "there but for the grace of God go I"

Correct. I do not.

I think there is such a thing a luck, and some people are the victim of circumstance.

In my view the only determining factor of whether or not we are a victim of circumstance is how we respond to circumstance. Here's a fairly good example that might be applied to this principle.

For entertainment I thoroughly enjoy watching professional poker tournaments on YouTube. While luck is involved in which cards are dealt to each player, the only thing that really matters is how each player plays their hand. Some win even though they were dealt absolutely abysmal cards, while others end up losing even though they were dealt the winning hand. So it is how each player responds to the cards they are dealt that makes all the difference.

When I was a small boy and hurt myself playing or whatever she'd tell me "That's God's punishment".

To hold that view is nothing short of self destructive because it creates an aversion to learning valuable lessons from the pain of hurting yourself. Without the experience of pain it is impossible to become a better person. It's no wonder that your Mom killed herself. What's left when you don't learn from pain?

If you believe that Nature and the Laws of Nature are your version of God,

Thank God I don't believe that.

It's obvious that God is not Nature... for only Something which is greater than the physical universe can create it from nothing.

then if you neglect to pay attention or are ignorant of these laws you could call this inattentiveness or ignorance a "sin" against Nature and then of course you pay the consequences.

It is impossible to "sin" against nature, because nature is completely devoid of morality. I live right on the border of civilization and nature, and can tell you first hand that in nature everything is ripping the heads off of everything else and eating it. Morality can only pertain to human behavior as it affects other humans.

If you don't mind, I'll continue as time permits.

Greg

[moralist]

Mike: Good stuff - which kick-started some thoughts.

The basic question as I see it, is this:

Do we each get our 'just desserts' in life?

Should we?

That raises: Justice- from what, or whom? By which standards? In what form?

I think most thoughtful youngsters grapple with this fundamental question, often their eventual answer influencing the rest of their lives. The two essential alternatives seem to be that you either get justice from God (by religious observance)- or justice from 'Society'.(Whatever that may be...)

In my case, I recall sensing intensely the injustice of men on men, and - already moving towards atheism - it put me well on the way to becoming a Socialist of sorts! Evidently, I hadn't even begun to think it out deeply enough; the 'third option' - which Rand's writing (when I arrived on it) made clear hit me powerfully in its truthfulness. As you know, this is 'justice in reality'.

Roughly: Each individual's only authority is reality. His, is the final judgement on his existence. He is owed nothing by existence. However, and without guarantee, living in accord with its codes will bring rewards. His one major responsibility to others is the just acknowledgement or praise of their own striving to excellence - following from which, he should never impede their free choice to act as they see fit.

(End of Objectivism commercial break. ;))

Greg's philosophy (throughout, no matter my disagreement, I've appreciated his candour) looks like a rather strange mixture of these- but without the 'society': his belief in supernatural design and oversight; along with extreme personal self-responsibility and unreal self-determinism; along with the unreal causality of his upon other people's lives.

His Nature-cum-God explications follow a notable line of scientists and thinkers, whom we've often discussed here. Like many thoughtfully searching religious people I've known, it appears an attempt to unite two irreconcilable aspects.

"Live right by God AND Reality, and you will reap the rewards" - in essence.

(I look forward to hearing Greg's own comment.)

Having said all that, what I finally take home from friends and acquaintances who have espoused approximately the same thing, is their explicit individuality and implicit individualism. That's gold in the bank in my view.

You expressed this point so well...

"Live right by God AND Reality, and you will reap the rewards" - in essence.

...because it rightly identifies God and physical reality as two distinctly different things. It's disastrous to combine them.

Greg

[PDS]

Regarding the notion that of God and reality being two distinctly different things, consider this statement:

“Yet all those things which you fill, you fill with the whole of yourself . . . Are you not everywhere in your whole being, while there is nothing whatever that can hold you entirely?”

St. Augustine would beg to differ with you, Greg. (Confessions, 1.3.3).

[Mikee]

Mike: Good stuff - which kick-started some thoughts.

The basic question as I see it, is this:

Do we each get our 'just desserts' in life?

Should we?

That raises: Justice- from what, or whom? By which standards? In what form?

I think most thoughtful youngsters grapple with this fundamental question, often their eventual answer influencing the rest of their lives. The two essential alternatives seem to be that you either get justice from God (by religious observance)- or justice from 'Society'.(Whatever that may be...)

In my case, I recall sensing intensely the injustice of men on men, and - already moving towards atheism - it put me well on the way to becoming a Socialist of sorts! Evidently, I hadn't even begun to think it out deeply enough; the 'third option' - which Rand's writing (when I arrived on it) made clear hit me powerfully in its truthfulness. As you know, this is 'justice in reality'.

Roughly: Each individual's only authority is reality. His, is the final judgement on his existence. He is owed nothing by existence. However, and without guarantee, living in accord with its codes will bring rewards. His one major responsibility to others is the just acknowledgement or praise of their own striving to excellence - following from which, he should never impede their free choice to act as they see fit.

(End of Objectivism commercial break. ;))

Greg's philosophy (throughout, no matter my disagreement, I've appreciated his candour) looks like a rather strange mixture of these- but without the 'society': his belief in supernatural design and oversight; along with extreme personal self-responsibility and unreal self-determinism; along with the unreal causality of his upon other people's lives.

His Nature-cum-God explications follow a notable line of scientists and thinkers, whom we've often discussed here. Like many thoughtfully searching religious people I've known, it appears an attempt to unite two irreconcilable aspects.

"Live right by God AND Reality, and you will reap the rewards" - in essence.

(I look forward to hearing Greg's own comment.)

Having said all that, what I finally take home from friends and acquaintances who have espoused approximately the same thing, is their explicit individuality and implicit individualism. That's gold in the bank in my view.

Tony,

Thank you.

"Do we each get our 'just desserts' in life?"

I'm reminded of "Unforgiven". Actions beget consequences, "Deserves got nothing to do with it". I take that to mean "you live by your code, I live by mine". Self righteousness is really sort of silly. Blinds the person feeling it, annoys everyone else.

I posted a link to this letter on OL recently, to Cathy's attention. It is from Ayn Rand to a Reverend Dudley in reply to questions about The Fountainhead. She holds that any religion that believes in free will does not contradict her philosophy. It actually explains the seemingly contradictory "Moralist" pretty well, how he can integrate Ayn Rand's philosophy into his Christianity and God belief. Evidently Ayn's arguments for atheism aren't worthy of his attention. Pick what you want, throw away the rest. That's okay. The problem with living with contradictions is they can blind you to the self evident. For instance, free will does not equal omniscience.

Best Wishes,

Mike E.

[moralist]

do you consider his condition,at present, to be a product of "just and deserved" consequences this lad has set into motion.

No.

Parents are morally accountable for where their children are until their children grow to be adults who are morally accountable for themselves.

Why do some people with every advantage in life devolve into indecent ugly angry bitter crud...

...while others with no advantage in life grow to bloom into beautifully decent happy human beings?

Greg

[moralist]

Regarding the notion that of God and reality being two distinctly different things, consider this statement:

“Yet all those things which you fill, you fill with the whole of yourself . . . Are you not everywhere in your whole being, while there is nothing whatever that can hold you entirely?”

St. Augustine would beg to differ with you, Greg. (Confessions, 1.3.3).

That's a matter of interpretation. I read that to mean that God is complete in Himself no matter where He is, and there is nothing in His creation that has the power to contain Him. Being someplace is not the same as being that place. Which is a functional definition of the Creator being greater than His creation.

It's a old common well worn flaw to worship creation as a god... instead of its Creator Who is God. Also known as idolatry.

Greg

[moralist]

(about Ayn Rand) She holds that any religion that believes in free will does not contradict her philosophy. It actually explains the seemingly contradictory "Moralist" pretty well, how he can integrate Ayn Rand's philosophy into his Christianity and God belief. Evidently Ayn's arguments for atheism aren't worthy of his attention.

I know that everyone has free will, so there is no disagreement with Ayn Rand there. And you're right. I don't care about her views on religion and atheism, because I'm a behaviorist and not a dogmatist. So the agreement over free will trumps anything else she might ever have said about religion, because inherent to free will is the personal moral accountability for the consequences we set into motion by our own actions.

What people do is what makes this world what it is... not why they do it.

What always beats why.

[moralist]

Just noting that the where this thread went has absolutely nothing to do with its title.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

I posted a link to this letter on OL recently, to Cathy's attention. It is from Ayn Rand to a Reverend Dudley in reply to questions about The Fountainhead. She holds that any religion that believes in free will does not contradict her philosophy.

That letter, dated October 23, 1943, was written when Rand was in a transitional phase between holding independence as her prime virtue and holding rationality as her prime virtue. She was working on a piece called "The Moral Basis of Individualism," which she never finished. See the Journals, pp. 243-310.

By the time she was writing Galt's Speech, she'd grown harsh toward Christianity. I suppose the reason the letter to Reverend Dudley isn't included in the Letters is because of discrepancies from Rand's later views.

Ellen

[PDS]

do you consider his condition,at present, to be a product of "just and deserved" consequences this lad has set into motion.

No.

Parents are morally accountable for where their children are until their children grow to be adults who are morally accountable for themselves.

Why do some people with every advantage in life devolve into indecent ugly angry bitter crud...

...while others with no advantage in life grow to bloom into beautifully decent happy human beings?

Greg

Free will.

Next?

[moralist]

do you consider his condition,at present, to be a product of "just and deserved" consequences this lad has set into motion.

No.

Parents are morally accountable for where their children are until their children grow to be adults who are morally accountable for themselves.

Why do some people with every advantage in life devolve into indecent ugly angry bitter crud...

...while others with no advantage in life grow to bloom into beautifully decent happy human beings?

Greg

Free will.

Next?

Yes, Exactly.

It is how people respond to the world that makes them what they are... not the garbage dump their parents landed them in when they were kids.

Successful people are never bitter or blaming about their beginnings no matter how awful. In fact, not being resentful and angrily blaming others is a vital ingredient to success in overcoming those disadvantages to become a decent human being.

Greg

[moralist]

By the time she was writing Galt's Speech, she'd grown harsh toward Christianity.

...and I don't blame her. For the Christian Church had degenerated into a feminized liberal feel good self esteem Barney the Dinosaur club designed to make people feel comfortable in their moral weakness.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] the Christian Church had degenerated into a feminized liberal feel good self esteem Barney the Dinosaur club designed to make people feel comfortable in their moral weakness.

Yeah, the good old days of torture chambers and (literal) burning of heretics had gone out of fashion.

Ellen

[Mikee]

I posted a link to this letter on OL recently, to Cathy's attention. It is from Ayn Rand to a Reverend Dudley in reply to questions about The Fountainhead. She holds that any religion that believes in free will does not contradict her philosophy.

That letter, dated October 23, 1943, was written when Rand was in a transitional phase between holding independence as her prime virtue and holding rationality as her prime virtue. She was working on a piece called "The Moral Basis of Individualism," which she never finished. See the Journals, pp. 243-310.

By the time she was writing Galt's Speech, she'd grown harsh toward Christianity. I suppose the reason the letter to Reverend Dudley isn't included in the Letters is because of discrepancies from Rand's later views.

Ellen

Ellen,

Thanks for the information. I think it's a wonderful letter nevertheless.

[Brant Gaede]

God as an omnipotent bigger than reality thing. This is an idea.

Reality is a conglomeration of facts--all facts, known and unknown. God is excluded for He is only a thought for which no verifiable evidence can be deduced.

The first pertains to the realm of purely ideas with no known existentiality.

The second is metaphysics and epistemology. Call God "reality" and you deny the first proposition and affirm the second. This semantical juxtaposition is to avoid the negativity of "atheism" and membership with militant atheists and redirects attention to where it is deserved--to scientific inquiry with the scientific method and general rationality replacing faith. There is no gravitas or morality or anything else in atheism.

The "disaster" of combining God and reality is only the disaster of man looking to man for morality and that some immoral men claiming to be moral rule over others by force. They rationalize this by claiming "reason" and sometimes go forth and murder untold millions which was their special wont in the last century. But faith and worship are impervious to the "reason" of totalitarianism, not that that stopped Hitler, Stalin and such, for the "impervious" was in the mind only, not on the ground. Communists and Nazis were men of action and were countered by men of reaction, many of whom went across the seas and killed the SOBs.

--Brant

and on it goes

technology is changing everything anyway and the old order is being and will be swept away

[anthony]

Ellen: Indeed, it's useful to know that Rand's time-line matters. Apparently, it follows her personal evolution away from Nietzchean egoism.

Independence "one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind" becomes a virtue. Rationality, of course, is "man's basic virtue". [VOS, 1961] Reason supplants independence, as primary of the three cardinal values. Otherwise, not much changes that I see. Reason (the top value) depends upon volition and independence of mind (the virtue), surely?

Rand merely re-shuffled the deck, I think (and I don't think she would completely discount her earlier Dudley letter, which is quite "wonderful".)