Well, regarding beauty and love, IMHO she covers it pretty well in The Romantic Manifesto and Virtue of Selfishness respectively. In my understanding, love also exists with ultimately selfish purposes, even in the most romantic kind of surrender you can imagine. Art would also have purpose, no matter how hard an artist tries not to admit it (even if someone says it's purpose is to not have one:)
About lifestyle, egoism would be just an acknowledgement of a fact regarding human nature, altruists are just people who still inevitably act according to egoistic purposes but profess the contrary, and the consequences of such denial can be devastating. If you think being honest in understanding one's own purpose (i.e. being an egoist) can have bad results, I'd say you could be right given the fact our society is saturated with altruism in many levels. IWO, being honest in a dishonest society can be harmful! heh:) The ideal of honesty can seem something too out of reach, I understand, but I have trouble accepting an alternative to that and its consequences.
Undoubtedly, Rand was a pioneer, and as such, IMHO, is entitled a right to commit mistakes such as overlooking details or treating complex subjects without enough strictness, but that is also because she's a philosopher, someone usually focused in essentials (generalities are always more prone to error). Despite that, I take her work as base for my own philosophical interpretations and use what I believe was essential to her thinking, which was finding rational and consistent interpretations to things, to solve any issue she failed to answer or consider.
Ok, uh.. now I forgot what Carmack had to do with all this. heh
I get your point. I did exceed a bit on my reply though, sorry if I was rude. What I meant to say is that Rand never had a view of the ideal man as a "materialistic bastard with no regard for petty things like morality, virtues, benevolence, etc." it's the kind of interpretation that denotes an essential lack of understanding of what she was trying to say.
Carmack would actually be someone she'd consider a hero: he does what he thinks is cool and people like it. He likes doing his work (and is proud of it) despite the recognition or money he gets from other people. That's just so Howard Roark.
What was that you said about Ayn Rand? Gosh, I just hate it when people make this kind of comment that shows such a shallow and narrow-minded understanding of her philosophy. You've certainly never read any of her books.
A man's rationality, integrity and honesty are virtues that she has pointed out many times on many of her fiction and non-fiction writings, and that's definitely something she would notice about Carmack in the first place (if Miss Rand were alive and knew him, that is).
Why don't you ask Carmack about Ayn Rand? I wouldn't be the least surprised if he said he's an Objectivist.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, regarding beauty and love, IMHO she covers it pretty well in The Romantic Manifesto and Virtue of Selfishness respectively. In my understanding, love also exists with ultimately selfish purposes, even in the most romantic kind of surrender you can imagine. Art would also have purpose, no matter how hard an artist tries not to admit it (even if someone says it's purpose is to not have one :)
:) The ideal of honesty can seem something too out of reach, I understand, but I have trouble accepting an alternative to that and its consequences.
About lifestyle, egoism would be just an acknowledgement of a fact regarding human nature, altruists are just people who still inevitably act according to egoistic purposes but profess the contrary, and the consequences of such denial can be devastating. If you think being honest in understanding one's own purpose (i.e. being an egoist) can have bad results, I'd say you could be right given the fact our society is saturated with altruism in many levels. IWO, being honest in a dishonest society can be harmful! heh
Undoubtedly, Rand was a pioneer, and as such, IMHO, is entitled a right to commit mistakes such as overlooking details or treating complex subjects without enough strictness, but that is also because she's a philosopher, someone usually focused in essentials (generalities are always more prone to error). Despite that, I take her work as base for my own philosophical interpretations and use what I believe was essential to her thinking, which was finding rational and consistent interpretations to things, to solve any issue she failed to answer or consider.
Ok, uh.. now I forgot what Carmack had to do with all this. heh
Dan 'Neurobasher' Gomes
I get your point. I did exceed a bit on my reply though, sorry if I was rude. What I meant to say is that Rand never had a view of the ideal man as a "materialistic bastard with no regard for petty things like morality, virtues, benevolence, etc." it's the kind of interpretation that denotes an essential lack of understanding of what she was trying to say.
Carmack would actually be someone she'd consider a hero: he does what he thinks is cool and people like it. He likes doing his work (and is proud of it) despite the recognition or money he gets from other people. That's just so Howard Roark.
Dan 'Neurobasher' Gomes
What was that you said about Ayn Rand? Gosh, I just hate it when people make this kind of comment that shows such a shallow and narrow-minded understanding of her philosophy. You've certainly never read any of her books.
A man's rationality, integrity and honesty are virtues that she has pointed out many times on many of her fiction and non-fiction writings, and that's definitely something she would notice about Carmack in the first place (if Miss Rand were alive and knew him, that is).
Why don't you ask Carmack about Ayn Rand? I wouldn't be the least surprised if he said he's an Objectivist.
Dan 'Neurobasher' Gomes