Neither was Mother Teresa, so what's your point?
On Sep 13, 6:39 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rand was never a mother.
>
> On Sep 13, 2:25 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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/-Hidequotedtext
> > > > >-
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
