Ayn Rand'in bir kitabini okumaya calismis bitirmeden birakmistim. Birakma sebebim basit ve senin soruna da cevap olacaktir. Birkac kelimeyle yazilari felsefenin temel ilkeleri "for idiots". Torklarin ve Abduscularin ya da diger deyisle "wannabe Tork"larin ragbetinin sebebi bu idiot mahfilinde bulusmalaridir. Abdusun yazilari da "seyi sey etsinler..." vs turunden ifade fukaraligi disinda Ayn Rand'inkilere benzer. Isik hiziyla okuyarak ne dedigini anlayabilirsin. Sayende, gorev bilip, internette arastirdim, ben de ogrenmis oldum; Meger bu Ayn Rand da plagiarist tirtikci degil miymis!... Ismini vermeden, Kant'tan tirktikladigi yazilari varmis. Ayn Rand tas gibi Abduscu olabilirdi diye bir his var icimde. Iste yakayi ele verdigine dair bir ornek: [b][i]Thus Rand says: The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others... ["The Objectivist Ethics," 1961, The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet, 1964, p.27][/b] While Rand's apologists now want to say that she knew this was from Kant, I haven't yet heard the citation where she said so. Indeed, Rand typically never credited anyone but Aristotle as a worthy precedessor to herself. And although she had many reservations even about Aristotle, and while she condemned the ideas of many historical philosophers by name, referencing other philosophers from whom she may have derived ideas as much as from Aristotle never became part of her methodology. Kant is never mentioned in her writings except with demonization and caricature. Critics of Rand regard her manner, at times, as approaching plagarism -- it certainly often involved ingratitude, as with her lack of tribute to Isabel Paterson, from whom she may have derived much knowledge -- both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden note that Rand actually didn't do much reading in philosophy herself (though now Rand apologists tend to say either that this is a lie or that Rand had already done as much reading as was necessary). As it happens, Rand makes the same mistake with her means/ends principle as many critics of Kant. On her own terms, as being essentially a trader, the good person actually is "the means to the ends or the welfare of others." This is why economic exchanges take place, to further the ends and improve the welfare of each transactor. The missing term is that no one should be forced to be "the means to the ends or the welfare of others" against their will. There is also the ambiguity of what it means for a human being to be "an end in himself." This properly means respecting the will and autonomy of others, but it could also have a substantive interpretation, that respecting their own human nature and human life imposes duties to themselves on autonomous individuals to realize their nature. This is rather like what we actually get in Aristotle and even in Kant, and it can be the basis of paternatistic laws to criminalize actions by which people do things that are simply supposed to be bad for them. It is the ground of old laws involving "crimes against nature." Is it also an implication of Rand's principles? Yes indeed, if we look at Rand's practice as well as at her teaching. People who disagreed with her, even about things that were their own business, were condemned, browbeaten, and even "expelled" from Objectivism. Apparently they weren't living up to the promise of being human, as understood by Rand.[/i] adres: www.friesian.com/rand.htm selamlar.