Thanks for the link Molly; Lee, It's really just a ground level platform on which to expand. Rand simply pulls down the curtain and begins to unravel this tangled world. Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, so we should work from there. It's like watching automobile commercials on television, the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk but we perceive it to be a fascinating machine because we are not dealing on the level that Rand suggests. You can altruistically give a bag lady a million dollars but most likely down the road you will still have a bag lady. This is not to say that we should try in some way to help but we need to recognize it is our 'self' that takes precedence over the other. Rand states: "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." It is from that 'core' belief that we can then extend our hand, that is why you are a benefit to your family. Your family is part of your own rational self interest. It wouldn't do your family much good if you put all your resources into some altruistic cause. Even if you were wealthy it would only prove that you were able to provide in excess of your self interest and happiness.
On Sep 9, 6:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > We should all know by know my own feelings on the philosphy of Rand. > There is much that I disagree with yet some that I agree with. > > Rands achieving our own happiness as the highest moral purpose, can > readily fit alongside my own, 'right to be'. But this idea that we > all should rely on our own (absolute) reason, negects some inherent > parts of our 'nature'. > > We are not purely reasonable creatures, and some of us seem to live a > life without any form or reason at all. It is admiral that we seek to > better ourselves, yet not all of us do, it is admiral that we seek a > morality with which to better ourselvs, yet some are bound to disagree > on what that morality should be. > > All in all I think that any philosophy NOT grounded in the reality of > the situation is bound to fail. Rand discounts that most of us work > on multilevels, some of our decistions and actions stem from emotion, > some of our belifes are unreasonable. To suggest that doing so is > unethical ignores the way we work, indeed as I have said to Chris, I > have met enough followers of Rand's philosophy to make up my mind on > how such philosophy actualy works in the real world and what it does > to people. They are on the whole, cold, selfish, unemotional people, > yes of course this is merely my opinion but one I certianly hold to be > true due to my experiances. > > Rands objectivism simply does not work, if followed it changes people, > and not for the better. > > On 8 Sep, 01:16, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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/-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
