/lit/ - Literature

>>11362495
>>11365484
>>11365732
First of all, I don't know who you're responding to, but it's certainly not me, and considering your conversational tone, I wouldn't be surprised, if all of those responses had a (you) written behind them if you're looking at them.
>>11365614
>>11365366
That's not me.

That said, you're right in stressing the fact, Galt says "I'LL think".

>the choice is still open to be a human being [...] and, reversing a costly historical error, to declare: 'I am, therefore I'll think'
>Accept the irrevocable fact that your life depends upon your mind. Admit that the whole of your struggle, your doubts, your fakes, your evasions, was a desperate quest for escape from the responsibility of a volitional consciousness
Atlas Shrugged 969

and further:
>Thinking is a man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think
Atlas Shrugged 931

Nevertheless, she's misinterpreting Cartesius when she says, he was wrong ("costly historical error").
Descartes just said existance is the condition of possibility of thinking (doubting). He didn't say thinking rationally (when Rand says "think" she means "think rationally") or even thinking itself was a necessary product of existing.
If you say "having legs" is the condition of possibility of walking, it doesn't mean you always walk just because you have legs.

Rand's misinterpretations of various philosophers btw. did her a lot of harm. Academically, she would have been received a lot better, if she was able to ground her ethics ontologically. For example, with some adequate changes, Kant and Heidegger work astonishingly well as a foundation of Rand's ethics and would have given her philosophy a lot more depth.