Fun for the well-read

16 Responses to Fun for the well-read

1. David L Alexander says:

   6 November 2008 at 1:31 pm

   I live in Arlington, Virginia. Your correspondent is welcome to click on the link at the end of this message and contact me.

   He’s serious, right?
2. Tom S. says:

   6 November 2008 at 2:00 pm

   BRILLIANT!!!

   I have spent the last 36 hours making John Galt references (and then explaining them to the clueless). If I had a t-shirt, I’d be wearing it, for sure, even if I was watching the inauguration on TV!
3. Michael J says:

   6 November 2008 at 2:08 pm

   Tom,

   I am ashamed to admit that I am among the “clueless”. Would you mind explaining the reference one more time?
4. Ohio Annie says:

   6 November 2008 at 2:12 pm

   Michael J, I looked it up in wikipedia and the entry seems pretty good.
5. Tim Ferguson says:

   6 November 2008 at 2:32 pm

   How about a t-shirt that says “Keep the CHANGE”
6. QueenoftTahiti says:

   6 November 2008 at 2:35 pm

   Check it out!

   http://www.johngaltgifts.com/
7. PMcGrath says:

   6 November 2008 at 4:19 pm

   OK, now I’m half-clueless. I did the Wiki-thing, and now I know who John Galt is. But, by Immanuel, why you Kant?
8. czemike says:

   6 November 2008 at 5:56 pm

   @PMcGrath: because the work of Kant was the basis for Hegel, which was the basis for Darwin, which was the basis for Marx, which was the basis for Obama.
9. Roman Sacristan says:

   6 November 2008 at 6:57 pm

   I had to do some research on the terms, but I have to now admit: That’s pretty darn funny!

   I also like Tim Ferguson’s idea!
10. Emily says:

    6 November 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Love that!!!
    I had a friend in college who was all over Atlas Shrugged. I think he wanted to be John Galt and deliver chapter-length speeches at our College Republican meetings.
11. Paula says:

    6 November 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Well, but remember that Ayn Rand was an atheist.
12. Jordanes says:

    6 November 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Yeah, Rand was pretty nuts. As I recall, she thought charity and altruism are immoral.
13. lcb says:

    7 November 2008 at 12:35 am

    On the 3rd I ordered a “who is john galt?” bumper sticker as my defiant cry.

    Yes rand was an atheist, and yes she wrote a book called “the virtue of selfishness” and yes Obama mocked the book in a speech.

    And Yes, Rand still serves as one of the two most devestating philosophical critiques of socialism.
14. tdh says:

    7 November 2008 at 12:57 am

    While Rand can serve as a devastating philosophical critique of socialism—assuming you take her to be doing serious philosophy—this requires that you accept her premises. And, if you accept your premises, you also have a devastating philosophical critique of altruism, Christianity, society, friendship in anything but the lowest of Aristotle’s three levels, love, marriage and a whole host of other things that you might want to retain. Some think this must be a reductio of her position; and, in any case, nothing (or almost nothing) in her work is consistent with Catholicism.
15. Doc Angelicus says:

    7 November 2008 at 12:58 pm

    tdh nailed it. Still, “I am John Galt” t-shirts will be annoying to no end to the president-elect and his supporters.

    Also, Kant, for all his imperfections and influence on destructive philosophers, still held that one person ought not instrumentalize another, and he held it rather strongly. In that sense, his philosophy would seem to counter the inclination toward abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, and sexual immorality. That Kant underlies Obama’s ideology via Hegel, Darwin, and Marx would be somewhat obscure, if “No you Kant” means “You’re wrong because your hegelian-darwinian-marxist ideology is based on the errors of Kant.” Wwouldn’t “No you Kant” rather be a challenge to Obama’s ideology on life issues? “No you Kant instrumentalize others.”

    “Off the Marx” would be good, too.
16. czemike says:

    8 November 2008 at 11:04 am

    While Rand can serve as a devastating philosophical critique of socialism—assuming you take her to be doing serious philosophy—this requires that you accept her premises. And, if you accept your premises, you also have a devastating philosophical critique of altruism, Christianity, society, friendship in anything but the lowest of Aristotle’s three levels, love, marriage and a whole host of other things that you might want to retain. Some think this must be a reductio of her position; and, in any case, nothing (or almost nothing) in her work is consistent with Catholicism.

    Ayn Rand’s objectivism, as I see it, is the realization of the natural law (commandments 4-10) at the level of nature alone. You don’t need to believe in God to recognize or accept the correctness of the natural law. Considering we are up against a bunch of Marxists, many of whom don’t believe in God, Rand’s defenses of “atheistic morality” is a sufficient stumbling block (at least at first) to the intellectual atheist.

    For those who actually do believe in God, it’s even easier to show them the idiocy of their beliefs.