You could say the same thing about every character ever written. They're all extensions of the author. Even a character as complex as, say, Stephen Dedalus, is in the end a product entirely of his creator's mind. One of the catches of reading fiction is that you always need to remember that they are the product of a single mind.
> There is certainly a lot to be said for enlightened self interest and personal freedom, but the absolutism of objectivism is just as wrong as communism.
But which concept is better? When you subscribe to an idea you do it for the practical idea of it. Communism says that you should put everybody in front of you, and do what everybody else thinks you should. (Or rather, subjectivism does, since that's the true opposite of Objectivism; Communism rather states that the community is more important than the individual, which is closer to subjectivism.) Objectivism says that you should rely on yourself to do what's right. The one is much healthier mentally, and that's a good sign.
> There is certainly a lot to be said for enlightened self interest and personal freedom, but the absolutism of objectivism is just as wrong as communism.
But which concept is better? When you subscribe to an idea you do it for the practical idea of it. Communism says that you should put everybody in front of you, and do what everybody else thinks you should. (Or rather, subjectivism does, since that's the true opposite of Objectivism; Communism rather states that the community is more important than the individual, which is closer to subjectivism.) Objectivism says that you should rely on yourself to do what's right. The one is much healthier mentally, and that's a good sign.