Typo correction

Posted by Shilpa Chheda on October 30, 1998 at 21:33:59:

In Reply to: RE posted by Shilpa Chheda on October 30, 1998 at 21:32:03:

: : : I was a huge, huge Any Rand fan for many years.
: : : But ... as Dr. Peck notes in his third book (the first being "The Road Less Traveled: a New Psychology of Love, Spiritual Growth and Traditional Values," [1978] now the #1 non-fiction best-seller in history; and the second, "People of the Lie: the Hope for Healing Human Evil" [1983] -- easily two of the greatest books ever written, if not the "top 2" -- touching upon many of the core concepts that concern this site: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, RELIGION, THINKING, "THE BIG PICTURE," ETC.), "The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace," [1985] ... something about Ayn Rand's philosophy of "rugged individualism" bothered me ....

: : : After having read "Atlas Shrugged," [1957] Peck noted that in this sweeping panorama of the full lives of many people -- THERE WERE ESSENTIALLY NO CHILDREN IN THE WORLD. (Rand's readers will remember Dagny's persistent assertion as a child: "CHILDHOOD IS NOTHING BUT A COMPLETE AND TOTALLY STUPID WASTE OF MY TIME, AND NOTHING IN MY LIFE WILL MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST UNTIL I GET TO THE ADULT WORLD." (My paraphrase.)

: : : Peck notes that children, and "others LIKE children" -- the infirmed, the handicapped, the illiterate, the deaf, the mute, etc. -- CANNOT "SUBSCRIBE" TO THE "FALLACY OF RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM" -- THEY MUST DEPEND ON THE GOOD GRACES OF OTHERS.

: : : THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. Compassion here on Earth isn't just "nice" -- ITS ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY IF WE ARE TO LIVE AS CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS.

: : : This explains the "vague uneasiness" non-Ayn Rand fans have always asserted they "couldn't quite put their finger on" -- and, notes Dr. Peck, ILLUSTRATES AN EXCELLENT PRINCIPLE OF "GOOD THINKING": ALWAYS ASK YOURSELF: WHAT'S MISSING? WHAT AM I NOT BEING TOLD? WHAT IS BEING OMITTED FROM THE PICTURE?

: : In considering Dagney's phrase on its own, I find it interesting that in general, the statement is true. We do live in an adult world, and childhood is/should be preparation for the adult environment. Is Dagney negating her childhood? No, my impression is that she is merely frustrated by the process of becoming an adult, and is expressing her frustration that it took so long to get her there.

: I think we need to consider the fact that as a child, it is true that you cannot do things for yourself up until a certian point becuase of the natural state of a human. Example: you can't do things until you are able to walk, express your ideas in words (learn to speak), etc. BUT, AFTER this stage, what is stopping you as a child from becoming an adult? Child labor laws? Laws that require you to go to school (which according to objectivism, ruins a child's rational mind). Childhood is a big part of the book that functions as symbolism. As a child you are still innocent, and therefore, adults find no reason in which you should be happy, or enjoying yourself, or having fun. This is normal for a child. But Rand wants to emphasize that for Dagny, it is also a normal.

The above should read that adults find no reason why children should NOT be happy, NOT enjoying themselves... etc.