Monday, September 19, 2005

Man - To Be or not To Be.

Perhaps one of the most inspiring writer, I have ever had a chance to read of is Ayn Rand. Her philosophy which infact defends capitalism during an age when capitalists and industrialists were shunned as being too selfish and anti-social. Her novels and her philosophy come in an all-pervading way to their rescue. She daredly came up with her unique philosophy of "Objectivism", which places man at the center of the universe with the power of the creator in him. She goes on to give meaning to human existence and marvels at man's ability to transform nature at will. He is considered a fertile organism with an overwhelming and unrelenting drive to succeed and produce with all his might and talent. Her protagonist is someone who cannot take which is not rightfully his and cannot live the life of a parasite, feeding off others talents.

She can be said to have restored pride in human existence. Her novels "We the living", "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" are not just fictional novels to be read and forgotten but are inspiring in a way which could transform human life from the current depths of tragic and gloomy existence.

Hence by posting these thoughts I exhort every one to atleast attempt reading her. Its worth more than you can ever imagine.


Blogger Aditya Rallan said...

I have a few questions for you:
1) Do you think man can control nature at will? Even if he can, is that conducive to the welfare of mankind?
2) Does being selfless mean that one is putting human existence at a lower pedestal? Is the rationale for existence dependent on whether you can change the environment at will? I reckon that it is the reverse.

3:55 AM  
Blogger shadow_sun said...

To answer the first question: Man's primary existence is for himself for only a man who knows what is good for himself will be able to contribute for other peoples good. A man who is not confident of himself cannot be expected to defend another. Can you as a person define welfare of mankind? Welfare is a relative term. It is very truly said that one man's nectar is other man's poison. Hence any thing you do can actually made to be harmful atleast one man in this world. You cant be held responsible for that nor can you prevent it in any form. So where is the question of welfare. when I say that man can control nature at will, I mean that man has the capacity, within his individual power of reasoning to know what is right or wrong. What is ethical to one may be sacrilegeous to the other. be careful with relative terms.

Secondly, how do you define selflessness. Maybe you would like to say that a person who contributes to charity is a selfless person. And what do people around you define charity as. I shall tell you. Charity, it is said is helping the invalid and the people who cannot earn a living on their own. But, this I believe should be done by a person with his own money. All the world's charitable organisations do nothin and they are a waste of human talent. We already have the invalid who are contributing nothin to the progress of mankind. Now the people working in these charitable organisations I could say are not doing a decent day's hard work as we are having more unproductive people in the form of being employed by these organisations. Some of these organisations also forcibly demand money in the name of selfless service. Do they know the worth of one hard earned penny? Tell me?

Changing the environment at will is only possible by those who have supreme intelligence. these are people who know what drives productivity. Now would you rather say that James Watt shouldnt have invented the steam engine because his invention now is blowing the ozone away. No man. Each invention has its due place in nature and there would be another invention by a progressive man to restrict this environmental disruption. But to say that cut out the steam engine is not the right thing.

4:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home