John Galt is pleased to know someone out there has actually made
an attempt at enriching their mind. He shall answer your questions.
>>1) The problem of Creation. I see that you neither espouse neither of the popular beliefs of a God-creator, or a Godless Bang. It seems to me that since there isn't a rational answer to the question, you believe it to be a non-question. I can't seem to find a way around it. Can you explain your beliefs here further?<<
You are not expected to find a way around it. Why do you persist in asking meaningless questions? Your drive to order and meaning is the
same drive inherent in all men, the drive to define reality, to unveil the truth, in order to survive. We have come a long way from the
ancients and their mythical writings. The time has come now to grow up.
>>2) Likewise existence. You stated, I believe in post 1328, that existence is magical. Period, end of sentence. If then, existence is magical, and real, how can you exclude the possibility/probability of other 'magical' realities? Especially considering that all perception, at its root, is filtered through your magical eyes?<<
John Galt does not refute the existance of God or any other questions
as they relate to the essence of being. For to do so is an attempt to
proove a negative and would be a fundamental violation of a rational
mind. However, an attempt to prove God's existance is a derogation
of mind or a lie. It is the essence of being that is magical. That is all. Be aware, John Galt abhors the politcal, social, and psychological implementations of the question.
>>3) You once called yourself a non-believer. I don't see how this can be, since you have been propositioned with a "truth", something in which to place belief. How then can you pretend that you never encountered the concept to begin with? You either accepted or rejected the idea. Are you saying that you neither accept nor reject? I'm having a tough time with that one; it doesn't seem rational<<
One does not need to believe, to hold faith in what is already known as truth, that the essence of existance is magical. Do you wish
to refute this? Who would refute this but only those one cannot comprehend the question.
>>No, I don't fear Emile. And if you lump us all together, well, that's your collectivist prerogative. But I thought you hated collectivism?<<
Please distinguish between collectivism and generalizations. John
Galt is not an active participant in any collective imposing his will upon others and violating their only right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, he may be perceived as a member of a
collective by another's generalization (i.e., John Galt is an American). You are free to collect. You are not free to violate
an individual's most basic right. |
