Rand says, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.â€
First, to me, nature will always be in control, you cannot command nature ever, you can only endure its forces or enjoy its magnificance.
SOUNDS NICE -BUT WRONG.
SHE MEANS THAT MAN’S KNOWLEDGE MUST BE CONSISTANT WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNVERSE. NO MYSTICAL IDEAS!
Rand says, “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.â€
Second, what’s this really supposed to mean I wonder? If I have cake to eat, don’t I already have it? And if it means that I still want to be in posession of the cake I already ate, then that doesn’t mean anything. All it means is that our needs and wants and desires keep changing, SO, isn’t this precisely where feeling or desire comes in, where is objectivism?
WHAT SHE MEANS IS THAT KNOWLEDGE AND REALITY ARE NON-CONTRADICTORY- NO YOU CAN’T EAT YOUR CAKE AND HAVE IT AT THE SAME TIME!
Stupid interpretation! I do not know what you think you are doing with her ideas but it’s a mess.
Rand says, “Man is an end in himself.â€
Third, if this were true, then every man could be an island, but the fact is that, “no man is an island.” We can only live in relationships and survive only that way, as such, sometimes we will use people or things or concepts, like I’m using Google right now for personal research, hehehe! and sometimes people will use us. The only difference is that we must learn where to draw the line. As soon as it comes to over-riding another’s rights, we cross that line. Because ask yourself this question, if “man is an end in himself” then, how can our happiness be dependent on others and theirs on us? Logically, man cannot be “an end in himself” or life would have no meaning at all.
ONCE AGAIN YOU MAKE NO SENSE!
WHAT SHE MEANS IS THAT MAN’S MORAL OBJECTIVE IS THE GOOD OF HIMSELF. THIS IS CONSISTANT WITH WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE “YOU CAN NEVER CONTROL NATURE” NO YOU CANNOT, BUT YOU CAN USE IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONESELF, LIKE LEARNING TO HARVEST CROPS. BUT THE POINT RAND IS MAKING HERE IS THAT IN REALITY IF MAN DOES NOT WORK AND TRANSFORM THINGS TO SUIT HIS NEEDS HE WILL DIE. THEREFORE IT IS CONSISTANT WITH THIS FACT TO CONCLUDE THAT MAN HAS A MORAL OBEJECTIVE TO EARN ONESELF A LIFE.
YOU MADE (MADE AS AN END = “MAN IS AN ISLAND” WITH NO NEED FOR ANY INTERACTION WHATSOEVER) DON’T YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE. YOU ARE DROPPING OUT THE POINT BEING MADE BY THE STATEMENT YOU ARE QUOTING AND INSERTING YOU OWN BULLSHIT ONE.
WHERE DOES RAND SAY IN THE PASSAGE YOU TOOK THIS QUOTE THAT MAN HAS NO NEED TO INTERACT WITH OTHERS? I TELL YOU WHERE … NO WHERE! - YOU MADE IT UP.
YOU SHOULD RETRACT EVERYTHING YOU SAID IN THIS THREAD BECAUSE RAND’S IDEAS ARE INTELLIGENT AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE.
Rand says, “Give me liberty or give me death.â€
Fourth, why do I have to make the choice? If I don’t have liberty, I’ll strive for it just like a slave might. By liberty Rand means having reason and individuality. But in life we mostly need a heart to make decisions. In fact, if the world perceives you as very brilliant, I have seen that many can turn against you because they fear you in some way and so will ‘violently oppose’ all that you say. So you see a comment like above does not make any sense. It does not make sense because in life we do not need reason and individuality to be our primary guides, feeling or subjectivity will do and will do better than the above two.
YOU NEED HELP!
“GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH” IS WELL KNOWN AND MEANS THAT WITHOUT FREEDOM LIFE IS WORTHLESS.
WHEN HAVE FEELING AND SUBJECTIVITY EVER BEEN RIGHT?
WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT REASON IS THE ONLY MEANS TO KNOWLEDGE?
BUT THEN YOU ASKED ME WHY, BECAUSE YOU KNOW BETTER.
THEN I ANSWERED BY SAYING “REASON IS THE ONLY MEANS TO KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL THAT WAY, OR BECAUSE I HAD A REVELATION”
I WONDER IF YOU WOULD SAY MY ANSWER WAS ACCEPTABLE…
Rand says, “2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.”
Fifth, I thought we perceive reality by our senses that our emotions dictate. And if reason was the only guide to action and not desire or emotions as well then who would be ambitious any more, people would just be content because reasonably those who have enough would be satisfied with that, but the fact is that ambition does exist and so reason cannot be the only guide to action, desire and emotions are too. Whatever…