Libertarian candidate for Senate urges Hoosier voters to think smallMs. Sink-Burris read "Atlas Shrugged" as a senior in high school, and the experience led her down a lifelong pathway to libertarianism.
Credit Ayn Rand. As a senior at Warren Central High School, Rebecca Sink-Burris devoured a copy of Rand's “Atlas Shrugged.” Young eyes were opened. A political foundation was formed.
I read "Atlas Shrugged" as a senior in high school, and the experience led me to ask aloud, "Is this Rand woman certifiably looney, or what?"
C'mon, folks: Erotic attractions to metal bracelets? That's just plain weird.
Ayn Rand was and is ethically bankrupt. Sadly, she's in vogue again. Culturally we are in a 'greed is good' mentality, when, in fact, greed is a moral corruption.
ReplyDeleteI digress. Anthem and The Fountainhead are great works. I think you should be able to respect literature even if you don't agree with all of its meanings. There's a certain preacher readying his lighters for a book burning that should take that message to heart.
ReplyDeleteOne can draw unintended lessons from books, which is why I always say there is no such thing as a dangerous book. I can't fathom why any Christian would adopt Objectivism as a guiding political, moral, or personal credo. It is antithetical to the Christ I know.
ReplyDeleteI found Rand's thinking to be deplorable. Dagny Taggart (and to a lesser extent, her lover Hank) is, to me, a hero in Atlas Shrugged, because she resisted the siren call of John Galt, because she refused to "shrug." I drew great lessons from the book, no matter who wrote it or what they intended me to draw from it. I think it's a great novel - one of the greatest - but I completely reject its intent.
DI-GRESS: to deviate or wander away from the main topic or purpose in speaking or writing; depart from the principal line of argument, plot, study, etc.
Daniel, I don't disagree. I would never burn books or literature. As literature Rand's books can be what they are. But I also agree that Objectivism is not a political philosophy that a practicing Christian could live with. I find it ethically revolting.
ReplyDeleteAnd that fool in Florida, whatever he's preaching, it isn't Christianity.
Professor I know what digress means, tis why I brought up the preacher bit.
ReplyDeleteJohn I definitely wasn't comparing you to the Florida guy, but I may disagree with you somewhat on the Christian/objectivism thing. But not a good place to have that debate.
I have to smirk when Messrs Manzo and Short quip about relativism and literary merit.
ReplyDeleteI think Graham Greene was among the most honest Christian writers of the last century. Primo Levi was simply honest.
ReplyDeleteJon, no one was speaking about relativism; it was objectivism which is a totally different thing.
ReplyDeleteYes, but, the Randian reality is perceived subjectively. The economic application of Objectivism strikes us as cold.
ReplyDeleteDid Darwin dream?
By what metric can you, sir, find her "ethically bankrupt"? It was extrapolating your own belief system upon hers and finding it deficient. It is by that measure on your part that I myself made mention of relativism. This wasn't to be inferred not in response to the methodology of Ms. Rand which does ascribe to a reduction or pruning of sorts. The ideas of Niall Ferguson aren't so terribly removed from this point of departure.
Got it. And true, it's from my own belief system that I find her ethically bankrupt. I was using relativism as defined by some in terms of ethics which is actually rather narrow. Quite honestly, most people are relativists in some way.
ReplyDeleteGot it. And true, it's from my own belief system that I find her ethically bankrupt. I was using relativism as defined by some in terms of ethics which is actually rather narrow. Quite honestly, most people are relativists in some way.
ReplyDeleteDid Jon Faith (?) just throw my name into this exchange? I have not commented hear for quite some time. Add to that the small group my name was mentioned with. Mr. Manzo and I only agree on our Savior and not much else. Plus, Mr. Faith's grammar and sentence structure leave something to be desired for someone in the education field. I believe he may be referring to Mr. Suddeath as the Daniel S. in question and not Daniel Short.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for rash responses and less-than-ideal syntax: from the hip, you see. Thanks for using both of my names as well.
ReplyDeleteIf it was the Tribune's Scoop, well, I am TRULY sorry for a host of implications. Sigh.
No worries Jon, I thought you were talking about my mom:)
ReplyDeleteOh, I missed that he referred to Daniel S. as Daniel Short. Sorry to both gents on that one.
ReplyDelete