There is substance there if one considers the indiscriminate drive to love one another, the warped sense of loving thy enemies. We know that one cannot begin to love another without loving self first. I've counseled many who stated "my whole world revolved around her/him", which obviously reveals itself to be the problematic issue, we must support our individuality. Once we lose our individuality we fade away, exist without substance. Rand's sacrificial analogy is not without relevance in that we should not become martyrs for the sake of someone's survival, and of course the issue of whether someone even deserves the love or attention. I agree that we all should rely on our own (absolute) reason and reiterate Kant's "duty of happiness". Rand lays it out as achieving our own happiness as the highest moral purpose. I've recently jousted with Lee on that very ideal in which I felt his concern for families of murderers was misguided and without foundation which reveals his personal slant toward the opposing side of Rand's proposal which ultimately resulted in assessing my view as selfish. I think Rand sees through all the bullshit and all the corruptness that comes with modified government regulated capitalism (now that's a laugh). Altruism is somewhat honorable when you have billions of dollars but for most it is simply a way to dig a grave. It's funny that Wallace spews out how we are taught to have concern for our fellow man, a "religious" indoctrination by which people become subservient with the notion that they are somehow fulfilling some kind of altruistic duty towards a God. I agree with Rand that I am entitled to my own happiness and also that I must achieve it on my own, for if not that then others will leach and suck the life blood out of me, however, if my happiness should become so abundant that I have the capacity to share it the by all means I would then give in to altruism. In aquatic life saving techniques there is a maneuver that pushes away the drowning person so that they don't kill you trying to save themselves. I don't love everyone and I've made that clear on several occasions and I agree with Rand that it would be impossible to love everyone. Value and Virtue do play a role in loving and so why should I be asked to love lowlife dregs of society? As much as I have helped many I have let many slither back under the rock from which they came. I've said it before, I'm not Ghandi, step over the line and I won't have any problem with shooting your head clean off.
On Sep 7, 1:54 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > ““The lower, and purely intellectual, is nearest to the principle of > Desire, and is thus distinguished from its other side which has > affinity for the spiritual principles above. If the Thinker becomes > wholly intellectual, the entire nature begins to tend downward—for > intellect alone is cold, heartless, selfish.” – W. Q. Judge: “The > Ocean of Theosophy” > > We were discussing things like love and compassion along with > consciousness in another thread. Here is a view from one extreme point > on the spectrum…that of Ayn Rand. Since she has been mentioned now and > then here, for those of you who have little exposure to her, her books > and/or philosophy, here is a short video interview that may provide a > fairly rapid and direct access to what is called objectivism. > > While the video is on a Theosophy site, read the other stuff only if > you are attracted, if not, that is fine too…scroll down to the 4th > picture and click on it for the video to start. > > “Objectivism vs Altruism” > > http://theosophywatch.com/2009/09/07/the-caring-spirit/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
