It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am having trouble figuring out which tenet of objectivism is, uh, objectionable?
For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. “To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A “clinging vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.
This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: tetra50
Judgement isn't yours
"the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."
Ayn would disagree with you. The world is my oyster - she would say. Do as thou wilt
She did a fair amount of judging her own self - while we're at it
Who knew you Randians were so sensitive?
I find she was also a callous, twisted person. She champions the "Robber Barons" (JPMorgan, for example) and blames the depression on the Government for regulation.....totally ignoring the pathetic conditions of the time, and how workhouses and laborers and children were treated. None at all.
She's about selfishness, all the way.
And she thinks religion is a horrible thing
Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35
What you quoted isn't a judgement of your life's choices and totality of what your spirit has become because of those. Instead, what you quoted justifies doing whatever necessary when finding yourself in any given situation
I put to you sincerely, that, perhaps, we all find it necessary to do such, if we've any chance at happiness.
Sensitivity? Have you even read her books?
The Fountainhead was about an architect who was extremely talented, naturally. He strove in his early life, and managed to get through school, with an amazing ability, only to find later in life that he would become indentured through business and law and men less than him using the current system/paradigm and religion
Religion is used as an opiate.
Never listened to the 'liberal' platform ?
And, uh, NO. You are totally wrong.
It is all about SELFISHNESS.
Free homes,free education,Free healthcare.Free EVERYTHING, and hell that minority the evil rich don't matter!
What are your thoughts on personal responsibility and, more to the point, why should someone else's lack of personal responsibility require others to take responsibility for them?
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
There's an old story:
You can fish people out of the rapids, dry them off, give them a cell phone and a meal, and send them on their way. OR, you can fish them out, TEACH THEM how to SWIM, and be self-sufficient and capable of managing their lives, OR, you can GO UPSTREAM and find whoever is throwing them OFF THE BRIDGE to begin with and annihilate THOSE people!
Which is the real problem, burd?
Answer: The people throwing them off the bridge to begin with.
THAT is where it starts. All the rest is bandaids.
...or are you including the scores of people who do nothing while living a subsidized life off the tax payers' earnings?
I don't have a solution
Those so-called "too big to fails" should be decaying skeletons pushing up wildflowers right now.
You get yourself into the mess, you get yourself out of the mess (or not, it's the individual's call, really.)
I know this'll freak the neoliberals here out, but it was a union job and, wow, did that ever make me feel good because I knew if I kept my nose clean, I'd be able to keep it. Today I've a nice little pension so my kids won't have to worry about me and my wife and that, friends, is a happy state of affairs.
Now, tell me, if I had rolled that Massey Ferguson when I was a pre-teen and wound up quadriplegic, do you think I'd deserve being tossed off that goddamned bridge and into the rapids?