12.07.2015 Views

Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

More oxford <strong>books</strong> @ www.OxfordeBook.<strong>com</strong><strong>Fore</strong> <strong>more</strong> <strong>urdu</strong> <strong>books</strong> <strong>visit</strong> <strong>www.4Urdu</strong>.<strong>com</strong>130FROM NOVELIST TO PHILOSOPHER, 1944–1957original sin and depravity. More problematic was Rand’s willingness toreject Catholicism whole cloth. She accused Rand of misanthropy forher sweeping condemnation of Catholic philosophers: “Can you indictsuch a considerable number of the human race, including some of thegreatest minds the human race has exhibited, without certain implicationsas to the human race itself?” Rand, for her part, was unapologetic.“Why yes, I certainly can,” she told Paterson. 80This issue over Catholicism quickly led to <strong>more</strong> perilous territory, asthe two women began to clash over how and whether Rand had influencedPaterson’s thinking on morality. The question of influence was aparticularly sensitive point for Rand, who now believed that Patersonhad unfairly borrowed her ideas about altruism in God of the Machine.Prior to publication Paterson had asked Rand if she could draw on theirdiscussions in her work without citing Rand specifically. Although Randagreed to this arrangement, when the book was published she discoveredsentences she described as “verbatim mine” from their conversations.Rand had never directly confronted Paterson about this, but herletter now hinted at this past history. In reply Paterson insisted thatRand had only helped clarify her thoughts on a specific application of“enlightened self interest.” 81Points of contention began to multiply as the two women arguedover specific conversations in the past, who had said what, and who hadagreed with whom. Once <strong>more</strong> letters proved a poor medium for <strong>com</strong>munication.Paterson thought the fault was Rand’s: “I read your lettersexactly, but sometimes you are not very exact.” Again a scheduled <strong>visit</strong>helped smooth over the problems. Paterson was finally <strong>com</strong>ing out toCalifornia, and Rand deferred further discussion until she arrived. Shehad high hopes for the <strong>visit</strong> and even agreed to pay Paterson’s travelcosts. Rand envisioned a return to the golden days of their friendship:“I am looking forward most eagerly to staying up with you all night, ifyou care to. Incidentally, the sun rises here are very beautiful, so I thinkwe will have a good time.” At the very least the California trip afforded achance to resolve the many disagreements that were piling up. 82From the beginning Paterson’s <strong>visit</strong> was a disaster. Rand discoveredthat her old friend “seemed to have lost interest in ideas. She talkedmuch <strong>more</strong> about personal gossip of a literary nature: who is writingwhat, what authors are doing, what her old friends are doing.” Paterson

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!