I actually do remembering seeing her on video for the first time after reading the Fountainhead, and thinking she came across as smug and arrogant as well. I was a bit surprised by some of the things she said, given the nature of the way I took her portrayal of characters. This was decades ago so I can't even remember specifics, just my general reactions. But of course part of gleaning things from others has to do with how we project onto them. That she herself seemed to fall short in my eyes from her idealized characters, really shouldn't be that much of a surprise.
Its just that of these two philosophers, one - Lao Tze seems is massively more profound than the other you mentioned - Ayn Rand, as to almost be qualitatively better, on the strength of a few quotes.
I am not saying this to attack you, but individualism and subjectivism are not so far apart, and I see subjectivism as harmful and what some people are floundering in nowadays. We are all individuals and each thinks for himself/ herself, but the possibility of
reasoning together is very important.
I do think there are right and close to right answers and profoundly wrong ones too, as well as good questions and bad questions.
I quote and acknowledge as much as possible, I don't need to put it in my own thoughts. Ayn Rand unfortunately may have done more to encourage mediocre minds to think they were profound.
Contrast another intellectual CS Lewis (whatever one thinks of him) he was able to
stand apart from his era. Same with Solzenitzin. But not if they had embraced Ayn Rand's life-approach of rational self-interest.
Christians largely don't want to face the real questions of the century. The justification of mankind takes importance over the justification of God. Which is more important?
Contrast Lao Tze with the verbosity of the modern mind / mouth. One can only grasp what he says according the magnamity and humility of ones heart, and usually only for moments. Its worth remembering his saying
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" but more important not to say it in the daftest contexts, or only at cocktail parties...
[Sorry to edit] But in fact the saying above is not maybe the best translation. I see some comments on the internet that it is best understood as: The journey of a thousand miles begins
beneath one's feet - quite different in important respects.
A modern mind is at pains to communicate insights with more and more precision. Why? Because people have lost contact with the greater part their souls. Yet when does it really reach anything very profound? It's like a diver being pulled up continually to the surface when she wants to get a better look at something glimmering on the sea bed.
Here is a short exercise: quote a little of Lao Tze back to yourself from memory.
Its quite possible that any philosopher may be ripped from their original cultural, intellectual and political mileau and used to serve certain modern intellectual or political trends. This happens too in religion where gnostic thought prospers on the soil of religious texts.
I mentioned in another thread the need (for myself also) of
road map for intellectual studies - not in the sense of laying down any single intellectual road, but to help people see where they might be moving ideologically and perhaps they want to study a particular intellectual but not follow logically on from that in the direction of an ideologue. [This is slight off topic, but still philosophy related]
So who do you ask? I don't have a first rate mind. Most will tell you who they read next if it 'helped' them. But most people don't know were they are travelling intellectually, or even when they get there, or where they want to travel either. There is not that many destinations and at least a few cliffs, and minefields.
So for instance given where one is intellectually in the 21st Century, does one want to know where that is and how one got there? Or simply read something that re-inforces the mindset of the times?
