To say 'I love you' one must first be able to say the 'I.'
Ayn RandRead
Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the "unfairness" of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact - in defiance of facts. It is not equality before the law that they seek, but inequality: the establishment of an inverted social pyramid, with a new aristocracy on top - the aristocracy of non-value.
Interpretation
The quote critiques the pursuit of enforced equality by highlighting inherent inequalities in nature and choice.
In this quote, Ayn Rand argues against the ideologies of egalitarianism that seek to eliminate natural inequalities in beauty and intelligence. She suggests that their push for enforced equality not only defies the reality of human differences but also aims to create a new form of inequality through a social hierarchy that privileges those deemed 'non-value', undermining true merit and individuality.
In practice
This quote can be used in a debate about social justice and equality.
To say 'I love you' one must first be able to say the 'I.'
The difference between animals and humans is that animals change themselves for the environment, but humans change the environment for themselves.
It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgement of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect.
What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.
One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living.
I think that when in doubt about the truth of an issue, it's safer and in better taste to select the least numerous of the adversaries.
Because animals are property, we consider as "humane treatment" that we would regard as torture if it were inflicted on humans.
If I am against the condition of the world, it is not because I am a moralist - it is because I want to laugh more.
Startling as the Gospel of Judas sounds, it amplifies hints we have long read in the Gospels of Mark and John that Jesus knew and even instigated the events of his passion, seeing them as part of a divine plan.
I will rejoice the day when they say: This is right whether we all rot on top of each other or not, dear children, as we certainly may. Either practice restraint or be prepared for crowding.
The fact is there is nothing that you can trust; and that is a terrible fact, whether you like it or not. Psychologically there is nothing in the world, that you can put your faith, your trust, or your belief in. Neither your gods, nor your science can save you, can bring you psychological certainty; and you have to accept that you can trust in absolutely nothing.
I'm not good at finding 'encouraging' features in American culture. I doubt that aesthetic literacy has much of a future here.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.