Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.comTHE REAL ROOT OF EVIL 127whose letters might be read by government censors; her fears she wouldbe misunderstood; and her busy schedule. Paterson was not placated,telling Rand in response, “A person is not an object or lamp post, tobe regarded as always ‘there’ for your convenience and having no otherexistence.” 71 The rest of her letter was equally tart. Where before she hadoverflowed with effusive praise for Rand and her work, Paterson nowchallenged Rand’s philosophical assumptions and her grasp of history.Paterson was particularly harsh on Rand’s new venture into philosophy.Responding to Rand’s critical comments on the philosophers shehad been reading, Paterson mused, “to be fair to them, one must envisagethe whole problem of systematic thinking as from scratch.” She then toldRand, “the ‘frightening kind of rationality’ you find in the philosophersis precisely your own kind.” 72 Although she had once celebrated theirjoint achievement in working out “the necessary axioms and deductionsof a free society,” Paterson now doubted the whole goal of syllogisticreasoning. 73 The real problem was not creating a rational system, butmaking sure the assumptions that underlay it were correct. And she wasnot at all clear that Rand would do it right, observing, “in lesser matters,you talk a lot of ‘reason,’ but frequently don’t use it, because you makeassumptions that are not valid.” She also had a few suggestions to makeabout Rand’s behavior. It struck Paterson as rude that Rand constantlytalked about sales of The Fountainhead when Paterson’s book had failedcommercially: “it appears to me that one could be a copper riveted individualistwithout being a solipsist.” 74 Paterson’s complaints about Randand her ideas were a dramatic switch from earlier letters. No doubt hertone was partially inspired by her mood swings, but Rand’s failure tocarefully tend the relationship had also drawn forth this dyspeptic andangry response.Rand was scandalized by the letter. She accused Paterson of puttingwords in her mouth and ignoring what she actually said. She rejectedPaterson’s comparison of her to other philosophers, insisting, “I havenot adopted any philosophy. I have created my own. I do not care tobe tagged with anyone else’s labels.” Though rigorously abstract, Rand’sdiscourse was in many ways aggressively anti-intellectual. She was uninterestedin placing herself within the broader community of thinkersand cared little about the intersections between different schools ofthought. “I see no point in discussing what some fools said in the past