Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com128FROM NOVELIST TO PHILOSOPHER, 1944–1957and why they said it and what error they made and where they went offthe rails,” she told Paterson. Rand was also concerned that Paterson hadbrought up the issue of God, and was immediately suspicious that “youbelieve that unless I accept God, I will have betrayed the cause of individualism.”75 In response Paterson gave little quarter, sending a secondcritical missive to her friend. She did not think Rand knew what she wastalking about when it came to reason or argumentation: “I suggest thatyou are confusing logical necessity with an assumed necessity of actuallyfollowing a logical sequence from a given premise, whether in thoughtor in words or in action, and also with the fact that an act has its ownconsequences.” And she rejected Rand’s claim to originality, telling her,“if you should hold a theory which has already been thought out . . . I willuse the word already existent for the thing.” 76But as it turned out, Rand was right about Paterson and God. Patersondid think that belief in God was essential to individualism, arguing, “butif you do start with a statement of atheism, you won’t have any basis forhuman rights.” This was the same criticism that Lane and the FEE readershad made. Rand’s theory of natural rights was based on fiat, on herstating it must be so. But in a world where rights were constantly challengedby despotic governments and violent crime, a more solid groundingwas imperative. Paterson concluded her letter with another snideremark. Rand had written about Thaddeus Ashby, her new “adoptedson,” whom she characterized as a replica of herself. Paterson was sharp:“I don’t know what would be interesting about a ‘replica’ of oneself.Would your replica write The Fountainhead again? It sounds kind ofsilly to me. However, it’s your own business.” 77 Intellectual differences,compounded by personal pride, began to snowball as the relationshipbetween the two women deteriorated.Before reaching the edge both Rand and Paterson pulled back. Randhad not yet responded to the latest blast when she received another letterfrom Paterson, this one friendly and happy and gossipy. Patersonhad been invited to Maryland to meet several DuPont executives, andthe meeting’s success had buoyed her outlook. Rand wisely decided notto respond to the longer letter, for the two women would see each othersoon in New York. It would be easier to iron out differences and resolvethe communication problem in person. Both probably sensed the fragilityof their connection, for in raising the issue of Rand’s atheism Paterson