If God is dead, nothing is permitted

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Wed, 2011-12-28 06:46

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]


( categories: )

I got to Babich from Cosmopolis

seymourblogger's picture

Nancy Babich is the code word for the scary smart gun Eric Ppacker uses to kill Torval in Cosmopolis. Babette is the name of Jack's wife in White Noise. DeLillo does this with names. They are "floating signs" for something else or someone else. Have you read it? Cronenberg filmed it and has finished editing it. The Robert Pattinson is the lead.

The Orders come from Jean Baudrillard's

seymourblogger's picture

Symbolic Exchange and Death and all the rest of his writings. Baudrillard is enmeshed with Nietzsche as he says: http://intellectualterrorism2.... and so is Rand in her fiction however much she denies, however much Peikoff scrubs Nietzsche out of her letters and journal. Just her linguistic utterances alone are a dead giveaway.

Arendt wrote much on Nietzsche and gave her lectures on him at the New School in 1966. On Arendt's teaching: http://therelativeabsolute.wor...

And then there is Babette Babich on Nietzsche which I have just discovered: file:///Users/janetabbey/Deskt... American born but educated in Germany and clearly has studied Nietzsche in the German. And her http://webcache.googleusercont...

Another Nietzschean scholar.

Now is the time for Nietzsche to come out from under Hitler's shadow for his time in the sun. If you download her

Janet

ding_an_sich's picture

"but its significance is profound. Nietzsche's fragmentary writing and aphorisms are in the Order of Seduction. This means that they are impossible to interpret, impossible to argue pro and con within the dialectic. Nietzsche forces you out of it laughing all the way. Hegel's dialectic, the path to idealism and utopia, to progress, to hope and change if I may repeat a certain slogan, is linear, and linear time is gone. Linear demands a certain quality of time, time for things to unfold. We do not live in that time anymore. We are bombarded. With information, books, films, all of it. We live from event to event, always in a rush."

Then perhaps we need to take a step back and reflect. Being bombarded and giving in to it, giving in to this world-and-everything-else-around-me. It's nothing more than inauthenticity.

Once again, I view Nietzsche in his historical context. He was refuting the idealism of the time (if not everything else as well). But I do not think we should give in to any sort of seduction, whether it be the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche, or any other philosopher. As for the "Order of Seduction' and "Order of Production", I have no idea what you are talking about. Where are you getting this from?

I will post more later. Aufwiedersehen.

ding it may seem unimportant

seymourblogger's picture

but its significance is profound. Nietzsche's fragmentary writing and aphorisms are in the Order of Seduction. This means that they are impossible to interpret, impossible to argue pro and con within the dialectic. Nietzsche forces you out of it laughing all the way. Hegel's dialectic, the path to idealism and utopia, to progress, to hope and change if I may repeat a certain slogan, is linear, and linear time is gone. Linear demands a certain quality of time, time for things to unfold. We do not live in that time anymore. We are bombarded. With information, books, films, all of it. We live from event to event, always in a rush.

If you are one of the ones from New Zealand, perhaps you don't experience this as much as Americans do. We are in a post 9-11 era where Events come out of the blue, with no causes, just smacking us in the face.

This is Nietzsche. Events. Fragments. No linear time, just the cycle of the Eternal Return. Deleuze elaborates on this with his book Difference and Repetition.

It may be unimportant to you as you live your life. But if you spend a lot of time reading, thinking and writing, it is crucial. Formal presentations lie within the authoritarian structure of the Order of Production. A theory, way of thinking is being produced. This is what Rand tried to do with her non-fiction. Her fiction lay in the Order of Seduction and was wonderful. By psychologizing her characters, her fiction was being pushed into the Order of Production, but somehow it doesn't stay there, but keeps wiggling free.

Janet

ding_an_sich's picture

I could care less if Nietzsche lacked a system. Granted, I find that fact to be important given the historical context; what, with Hegelian thought running rampant and all with it's opaque claims to a total system at that time. It seemed, in a way, necessary to abstain from grandiose systems which were ultimately built on nothing.

But all of this remains largely unimportant to me.

Great idea

Leonid's picture

"leonid take the Chinese character "wisdom""

Great idea! Here is even better one. Take the Hebrew character for " Alef", break it down and you will know what is wisdom, god, love, and social justice.

leonid take the Chinese character "wisdom"

seymourblogger's picture

and break it down into all the different characters that form it. Then you will know what wisdom is.

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

"What we need is a Randroid-English dictionary."

For you, Richard the ordinary dictionary would suffice if you were bother to use it.

Philosophy defined as:

1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4.the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge,
especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

How you'd propose to do all these things without "an explicit systematic non contradictory comprehensive view on existence."? By gut feelings?

Philosophy also means the love for wisdom, a thing which you are pitifully lacking and which you substitute with the smearing of Objectivism.

ding - Nietzsche did not have a system

seymourblogger's picture

and this is the way he avoided what Baudrillard calls The Order of Production. Nietzsche is all Seduction and Challenge, risk, reversibility, symbolic exchange, death, passion

Rand's fiction through Fountainhead was Nietzsche, but Nietzsche fictionalized, not non-fiction jargon as she got into with Branden. Branden started NBL later to become NBI when Atlas got disastrous reviews. He saw he would have to do something else and he did. But most of the non-fiction is not Rand at her best - in fiction - but in the Order of Production. Was this her way of confronting her mentor, Nietzsche? Of challenging Nietzsche? Or simply her way of hanging on to Branden, of giving him a career? Rand did not think philosophy lectures were financially viable but was proven wrong. On her own she would never have ventured into this area. Who knows if that would have been better for her? Surely it sold more books for her and gave her a much wider audience. But it opened her to much abuse.

Her acolytes did not help her prestige as many influential people did not like them. They were really all much inferior to her in intelligence and she was dictatorial with them as she did not suffer fools gladly. Branden has not been intellectually prominent since, and his well touted self-esteem coinage is way over estimated. Freud's ego will do very nicely along with Anna Freud's Defense Mechanisms in place of the popularized self-esteem label. It did sell a lot of books to people who never read any Freud though. Branden was/is a very mediocre psychologist but to someone who knows nothing about psychology he appears brilliant.

I am everlastingly grateful to him for forming NBL (what it was called when I attended) and changing the direction of my life. I also know the price I paid for adhering to it very strictly. So for me it is still a gift with a poison pill inside.

Sciaberra gives a wonderful and fair presentation of all of them that cannot be matched for integrity.

Richard Goode, Ph.D.

Richard Goode's picture

Btw nice photo Goode; really enjoying the trollface. XD

Trolling SOLO since 2007.

Goode

ding_an_sich's picture

"No one, but an Objectivist, understands 'philosophy' to mean "an explicit systematic non contradictory comprehensive view on existence."

What we need is a Randroid-English dictionary."

I understand a part of philosophy as system building, but with a far more liberal view as opposed to Objectivists.

Btw nice photo Goode; really enjoying the trollface. XD

Ugh...

ding_an_sich's picture

"Philosophy as I understand it, is an explicit systematic non contradictory comprehensive view on existence. You or anybody else of course can call philosophy whatever you please-be it incoherent meaningless jargon, words' game, stream of unconsciousness, or just intellectual masturbation without any particular purpose. If you cannot tell what philosopher's view on the nature of man, then who needs such a philosophy?"

And you can call philosophy whatever suits your fancy. Unfortunately, I suscribe to none of those positions on philosophy.

Did you read my post? Seriously, did you read it? I said that given what a philosopher has written we may or may not be able to discern whether they meet the qualifications you stipulate for philosophers. It has nothing to do with the works themselves, it has everything to do with the subject matter that philosopher writes about. I cannot tell from reading Saul Kripke's articles on completeness and soundness in modal logic, truth, philosophy of lanhuage, etc., what he thinks of man (whether he is rational or not; I am sure he thinks that man is rational). That is all I am saying. In fact, the only way we can tell is if we speak directly with that particular philosopher.

Further, not every philosopher has to expound their system of philosophy through their writings; although that is a good way to express one's system, it need not be done IN ORDER TO HAVE A SYSTEM. I think this is where some of the confusion is coming from; a philosopher does not need to write down their system in order to have a system. Aristotle and Kant did, along with Rand; and neither, as you contend, should we be able to discern from what a philosopher writes how he views man, or existence.

And another thing: not every philosophical problem specifically involves man. I can think of a good number of issues. Of course, they are implicitly tied to man, as man is the one who is questioning.

Well, that's my post. So read it goddamnit, and READ IT CLOSELY.

Clones of God

Richard Goode's picture

The clones are already with us, eh.

God created man in his own image.

Ya now goode

seymourblogger's picture

I think ya got it, by george I think ya got it! The clones are already with us, eh.

Randbot

Richard Goode's picture

we are wasting our time even discussing almost anything with leonid. He has a closed mind.

When I first encounted Mr. Nid, I found his comments so stereotyped that it even crossed my mind that he was not actually human, but an experiment in AI.

Portrait of the Novelist as a Young Woman

Richard Goode's picture

Where'd it go?

goode

seymourblogger's picture

leonid definition is absurd. So absurd nothing can be said.

goode we are wasting our time even discussing

seymourblogger's picture

almost anything with leonid. He has a closed mind. I remember when I first studied Obj my mind was completely closed and I had a Rand anwer for anything thrown at me. My thinking processes were cast in cement. Another grad student argued with me for over a year on this stuff and finally one day a psy experiment turned on the lightbulb for me. It was over then but the residuals were firmly in place and some still are.

Leonid cannot be argued with within the dialectic. The foundation of the Discourse incorporates its opposite. So from the getko it is useless and just generates endless endless endless interpretation and counter argument.

Leoid is going to stay there. Until he doesn't. But all the opposition here simply makes his thinking stronger in its well settled rut. That is why he is here.

It is the same with our political and economic system. All opposition just makes it stronger. I like the way the OWS people are manipulating the media. They are owning it.

Randroid-English dictionary

Richard Goode's picture

Philosophy as I understand it, is an explicit systematic non contradictory comprehensive view on existence.

No one, but an Objectivist, understands 'philosophy' to mean "an explicit systematic non contradictory comprehensive view on existence."

What we need is a Randroid-English dictionary.

"Philosophers are not

Leonid's picture

"Philosophers are not intellectual sperm donors."-You would be surprised...The problem is that fortunately they have very few recipients.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

philosophy ... just intellectual masturbation without any particular purpose.

Philosophers are not intellectual sperm donors.

ding_an_sich

Leonid's picture

Philosophy as I understand it, is an explicit systematic non contradictory comprehensive view on existence. You or anybody else of course can call philosophy whatever you please-be it incoherent meaningless jargon, words' game, stream of unconsciousness, or just intellectual masturbation without any particular purpose. If you cannot tell what philosopher's view on the nature of man, then who needs such a philosophy?

System building is finished

seymourblogger's picture

Foucault; Zizek; BHL; Virilio; Baudrillard; et al And Nietzsche of course who refused to system build, who wrote in fragments so no one else could do it to him after his death, who refused to put his philosophy into the Order of Production but to keep it in the Order of Seduction. Nietzsche is emerging as the philosopher of the 21st century. And Rand of course, in her fiction, who has kept Nietzsche with us.

I'm sure some of them...

ding_an_sich's picture

Fit this category. In any event, I pointed out that your statement is false. I found at least one philosopher that is "in our time". So we're done here. Whether or not a philosopher is a philosopher when, and only when, they system build and view man as a rational being, is another story. For all I know, every philosopher listed may or may not be a system builder and view man as a rational being, but I am unable to entirely discern this from some based upon what they write about. I will give you some examples; I finished reading, not too long ago, Peter van Inwagen's lectures on "The Problem of Evil". He, if you are not acquainted with him, is a Christian, so I (and Objectivists of course) might find in his writings some contradictory view of existence (assuming that he has some contradictory view of existence because he is a Christian), or something else, which would disqualify him as a philosopher (according to the statement you so happen to provide me with). However, reading any work by Saul Kripke (his works mostly cover logic and philosophy of language) allows me to gain very little insight into whether or not he is a) a system builder or b) views man as a rational being. He may or may not be, but I cannot tell.

So what am I getting at? Well, they're still called philosophers, whether or not they do indeed turn out to be system builders or view man as a rational being. Do we still call them philosophers because they may or may not turn out to have the properties which you ascribe to philosophers? Nope. And this may come from the fact that a philosopher is a more (perhaps less) than what you mentioned. It would, of course, make philosophy less of a science (which Objectivists want to claim), and more of an activity.

leonid

seymourblogger's picture

That's funny. No, I really mean it.

ding_an_sich

Leonid's picture

"List of some philosophers in our time"

I'm sure that this list could much longer. But could we call all of them philosophers in the traditional, Aristotelian, Platonic or even Kantian sense, that is- a builders of systems which represent comprehensive and non-contradictory view of existence? Those who are do consider man as a rational being.

Ahem....

ding_an_sich's picture

"Correction: there are no philosophers in our time."

List of some philosophers in our time:

Saul Kripke
Quentin Smith
Peter van Inwagen
Claire Ortiz Hill
Alvin Plantinga
Nicholas Rescher
Harry Binswanger
Jaakko Hintikka
Peter Geach
Douglas Hofstadter
Michael Dummet
Ruth Barcan Marcus
David Wiggins
Frederick Seddon
und so weiter...

"The mind is like a

Leonid's picture

"The mind is like a parachute. It works best when open."

Your mind is a parachute- a floppy device used to slow the motion

"This is not what

Leonid's picture

"This is not what philosophers concern themselves with in our time. "

Correction: there are no philosophers in our time.

Janet

Richard Goode's picture

Goode I like your title

Thanks!

Nothing is Permitted: An Argument for Moral Eliminativism was the title of my doctoral dissertation.

Goode I like your title

seymourblogger's picture

If Rand said who was going to stop her then who was going to forbid her. Or your interesting post modern twist, who could permit her, permission and forbidding the flip side of each other.

Nice.

Well marcus neither could the flat earth people

seymourblogger's picture

so happily join that group. And die like a dinosaur. Intellectually that is.

Seymour Blogger...

Marcus's picture

I couldn't care less what the current fashion is, I do not follow trends to satisfy people like you.

Goode interesting

seymourblogger's picture

I remember a lecture in Experimental Design on classification techniques. You know, ever since Aristotle, classification.

Birds. The classification techniques, methods changed when classification changed based on nesting - behavior, construction I think - instead of physical attributes. Nesting became the classification of choice overturning the Dominating Discourse of physical descriptions of birds.

An aside, Darwin noted changes in the birds he collected; their skeletons I think. Birdsong changes in a species in nearby but different locales.

Philosophers however are mainly concern with the essential definition of man, that is-man qua man. This is blatantly false. This is not what philosophers concern themselves with in our time. You are correct only if you are referring to the past. Maybe even pre-20th century. Not sure when the genealogical cut began but it would be interesting to do a genealogy on what you just said.

This is what Foucault said, "Do genealogies." I don't know what a POMO wanker is except what's his face likes to name call about things he knows little to nothing about. I guess he watches FOX news and deals in sound-bites. Ho hum.

Goode interesting

seymourblogger's picture

I remember a lecture in Experimental Design on classification techniques. You know, ever since Aristotle, classification.

Birds. The classification techniques, methods changed when classification changed based on nesting - behavior, construction I think - instead of physical attributes. Nesting became the classification of choice overturning the Dominating Discourse of physical descriptions of birds.

An aside, Darwin noted changes in the birds he collected; their skeletons I think. Birdsong changes in a species in nearby but different locales.

Philosophers however are mainly concern with the essential definition of man, that is-man qua man. This is blatantly false. This is not what philosophers concern themselves with in our time. You are correct only if you are referring to the past. Maybe even pre-20th century. Not sure when the genealogical cut began but it would be interesting to do a genealogy on what you just said.

This is what Foucault said, "Do genealogies." I don't know what a POMO wanker is except what's his face likes to name call about things he knows little to nothing about. I guess he watches FOX news and deals in sound-bites. Ho hum.

marcus this thinking went out with Newton

seymourblogger's picture

And the loss of it is mourned in the wonderful Smilla's Sense of Snow. You will love it. I loved it too.

leonid I won't go any further

seymourblogger's picture

Your thinking is too muddled for me to reply to. You have no idea what genealogical studies are. The one I mentioned was ONLY a study of sexual perversion in American Literature. That's all. Just in certain classic books starting with The Scarlet Letter. But our idea of perversion if looked at genealogically can be seen as sexual acts that do not lead to procreation.

the Catholic Church still forbids contraception, even though the majority of Catholics use some form of contraception. The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions that tries to be consistent throughout time. Rigid it is, but it tries to be logically consistent. When I grew up Catholics thought it a sin to eat meat on Friday. If they did they were obligated to confess it that week. Or later as the case may be. Then at some time - I forget - it became OK for Catholics to eat meat on Friday. The problem with this is that all the Catholics before it became OK, thought they had sinned, denied that they had sinned (within the church), confessed or did not confess their sin, were then confused as to the papal infallibility. Yes?

But with legal laws, they will change as the mores change. Sociology 101. The Constitution can be changed according to the rules of changing it. But it can be changed, as the mores change, difficult but not impossible.

You, however, will never change. Your mind is encased in stone. Like a vampire, you are frozen the way you are and will never change. Not much different than Twilight's Edward Cullen.

The mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.

All your thinking is pre-Einstein. And don't think Einstein didn't know this. A pity.

Great work Leonid...

Marcus's picture

...you have defined the essential characteristics of a pomo wanker.

I think you confuse dogma and axiom, and unwillingness to think in principles with the open mindness.

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

What is the identity of man?

The definition below pertains to an essential characteristic of man.
However man could be identified by non-essential features-for example by his ability to oppose the thumb, or as featherless biped. Philosophers however are mainly concern with the essential definition of man, that is-man qua man.

"O leonid you are so

Leonid's picture

"O leonid you are so dogmatic"

I think you confuse dogma and axiom, and unwillingness to think in principles with the open mindness.

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities"

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."

Law of Identity is an axiom. It is a Law of Nature, no matter who formulated it. It is helpful to remember that words have a meaning.

If genealogical studies come to prove that "transgression was any sexual act that did not lead to procreation" and as such it is the only act which is morally acceptable for certain times or cultures, then this is a claim for moral relativism which I consider to be a cancerous growth in the body of ethics.
If you believe that it was OK for the ancient people to burn their children alive because genealogy proves that it was their sacred order, then genealogy does nothing except to undermine the concept and context of morality.

"Read Hannah Arendt on The Constitution and how it was formed. It was a process in democracy"

Democracy means a rule of mob. Constitution deals with certain principles like inalienable people's rights. Such rights have nothing to do with the majority vote. That why they are inalienable.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

What is the identity of man qua man?-a sapient rational being

What is the identity of man?

What is the identity of man

Leonid's picture

What is the identity of man qua man?-a sapient rational being

Richard they are just repeating Rand/Branden dogma

seymourblogger's picture

with that Aristotelian ready-made Law of Identity. They are just soundbiting Rand. All noise signifying nothing.

O leonid you are so dogmatic

seymourblogger's picture

This is just Branden - Rand dogma coming out of your mouth onto the screen. Sexual transgressions change and morph. I recently read a genealogy of sexual perversion in american Literature starting with The Scarlet Letter. When a genealogy is done the meaning of transgression becomes clear. What was a transgression was any sexual act that did not lead to procreation. That ruled out incest, pedophilia, anal sex, oral sex, homosexual sex, and I guess you could come up with some more. Maybe paid for sex?

Read Hannah Arendt on The Constitution and how it was formed. It was a process in democracy. Don't knock genealogy untiol you have studied it. I'm sorry but I just cannot explain the color red to you. You are blind and have no experience of it.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Rules are man made, but rational men make rules in accordance to the law of identity which is an axiom. For example, what is sexual transgression? Any sexual act which contradicts the identity of man qua man.

What is the identity of man?

What is the identity of man qua man?

seymourblogge

Leonid's picture

"If god is dead, and I am glad you are saying "if" as that is the challenge Nietzsche throws at God, then the rules are man made. If they are man made, then men die, and the generations continue, and the rules are no longer hard and fast. Yes?"

No. God is indeed dead, but reality isn't. Rules are man made, but rational men make rules in accordance to the law of identity which is an axiom. For example, what is sexual transgression? Any sexual act which contradicts the identity of man qua man. All other rules which don't pertain to reality are irrational and therefore irrelevant, their genealogy notwithstanding. I don't think you are made of teflon, but you have to think in principles.

You make yourself as teflon

seymourblogger's picture

You make yourself as teflon Janet. All importance slides from you.

Now really gregster what does that quote mean? "Importance slides from me" slides off me, perception of importance slides off me, real importance slides off me. that's what's wrong around here. Most of you use words like ready-mades. They don't mean anything to you and when I call you on it, I am crazy, teflon coated for importance to stick on me, stick to me, etc.

Whatever any of you say about me, you are saying because I am not participating in your Dominating Discourse. It's simple to understand. What part of Dominating Discourse don't you understand?

Well Ross yes according to the mentality here

seymourblogger's picture

You are slumming. I am slumming. Silly questions get silly answers.

Is that via Foucault

gregster's picture

As gregster and darren have judged me. See why I am made of teflon as far as you lightweights are concerned.

You make yourself as teflon Janet. All importance slides from you.

Oh, dear

Ross Elliot's picture

"Because, if God is dead, there is no one to give permission. If God is dead, the question isn't who is going to let me; it's who's going to stop me."

This is the old--very old--existentialist angst stupidity.

Lord help me! I need to be restrained! If I'm not, I may harm myself!

Is this question being seriously asked? After all the discussion about anarchy, rational self-interest, minarchism and the social context of rights, are some seriously suggesting that individuals in a free society will suddenly start running around raping, shooting and robbing each other? Gawd!

leonid my answer was just eaten

seymourblogger's picture

" If God is dead, the question isn't who is going to let me; it's who's going to stop me."

Rand is correct. If God makes the rules, then God rewards and punishes. It is in his hands. The rules are on the tablets handed down by Moses.

If god is dead, and I am glad you are saying "if" as that is the challenge Nietzsche throws at God, then the rules are man made. If they are man made, then men die, and the generations continue, and the rules are no longer hard and fast. Yes?

This is Arendt's analysis, not mine, concerning the Constitution.

The issue is Transgression then, yes? And transgression will change with generations. But what is Transgression?

Let's take sexual transgression. An English lit scholar did a genealogy through American literature on sexual transgression which included The Scarlet Letter among some other well known classics. What sexual perversity came down to when observed genealogically was whether the act led to procreation or not. Hester was finally forgiven because of the way she brought up her beautiful child and her demeanor throughout time.

Foucault in his 1974 Lectures on Abnormal at the College de France detailed abmormal behavior, and consequently, normal behavior. There is a Dominating Discourse both verbal and non-verbal that signals normality. This is where power/knowledge lies, in these invisible interstices. This is where transgression lies also.

Roark wannabes probably did fall into the sand and rocks of reality except for a few. But architecture today indicates Roark was an influential character who determined a great deal of modern architecture. Or rather Rand did.

Rand was outside the Dominating Discourse, verbal and non-verbal, of her time. But her time allowed for more wiggle room than ours altho it doesn't seem so for the superficial observer.

An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs

Rand's fiction transgressed the Dominating Discourse of her time. Her fiction is still edgy, as witness Josephine Hart's best selling Damage which while it was a best seller immediately, and bought for the movies by Malle, shocked all her avant-garde friends in London. Damage is outside the Dominating Discourse of best selling fiction, although it is IN the dominating Discourse of fanfiction. Fountainhead and Atlas were outside the Dominating Discourse of fiction in their time. Which was exactly why they made a Foucauldian CUT in Western culture. Usually when you are outside the DD, in any way verbal or non-verbal, you are marginalized. Judged abnormal.

As gregster and darren have judged me. See why I am made of teflon as far as you lightweights are concerned.

Gotcha!

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

" If God is dead, the question isn't who is going to let me; it's who's going to stop me."

Reality still can stop you.Try to live on the diet of rocks and sand and you would be stopped in no time.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

If God is dead, nothing is permitted.

How so?

Because, if God is dead, there is no one to give permission. If God is dead, the question isn't who is going to let me; it's who's going to stop me.

Joe

Richard Goode's picture

Howard Roark/ THE FOUNTAINHEAD

Thanks!

Hey Goode

seymourblogger's picture

Thanks for the pic BTW. I have been meaning to get it for a long while.

If she didn't say it it still is exactly what she would have said. She had Roark say it, so Rand meant it and that's enough. Rand knew Nietzsche thoroughly, so she knew his Genealogy of Morals and once you have read Nietzsche on this, you have to go into utter denial to kgo back to thinking otherwise. He is irrefutable.

Foucault and Baudrillard are 200% in Nietzsche's camp on this. Me too BTW. DeLillo still believes in transcendence which F and B do not, and Cosmopolis is DeLillo's answer to Baudrillard. DeLillo believes in narrative transcendence. DeLillo was raised Catholic.

Interestingly Hannah Arendt (evil is banal) discusses this permission aspect in her book , Revolution concerning the Constitution. If god hands down the rules, as he does to Moses on the tablets, then any violation is answerable to God. If man makes the constitution, - the rules - , then man can change his mind, or the men who made it can die out, eh. And there lies the rub. And the entire feud between the Far Right Christian coalition and the Libertarians on the far left.

It's definitely a dilemma, eh.

Nietzsche did NOT say There is no God. Nietzsche said, God is dead. Big difference. God is dead is a challenge to God to appear to show he is not dead. A challenge, not a statement of fact. But his ghost will be around for a long time.

Rand was a severe logician. Very literal. There was only one choice for her: atheism and she knew that to deny Nietzsche's thinking, meant to compromise her mind, her ability to think clearly and logically.

Rand was a Nietzschean through and through. Very Nietzschean to destroy NBI.

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

"If God is dead, nothing is permitted"

How so?

Howard Roark/ THE FOUNTAINHEAD

Jmaurone's picture

"Do you mean to tell me that you're thinking seriously of building that way, when and if you are an architect?"
"Yes."
"My dear fellow, who will let you?"
"That's not the point. The point is, who will stop me?"

Ayn Rand

Richard Goode's picture

The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who's going to stop me.

So, come on, Rand scholars. Did Rand actually say this? If so, where and when?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.