Lets be honest, both women had a list of detractors...and both for good reason.
Mommie Dearest The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud. By Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/ By Erich Vieth on May 21st, 2008 The dark side of Mother Teresa http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/21/the-dark-side-of-mother-teresa/ "India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa" Sanal Edamaruku http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm On Sep 13, 8:19 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Taken in a philosophical vein, it could be said that Mother Teresa had > many, many children. For instance, how many people that met her > refereed to her as "Mother?" How many loved her more then their own > actual mother? Whereas Rand may have inspired 'disciples' no one > would make the leap to mother. From what I've read of her personal > life; she didn't seem like much of a nurturer. What Rigsy's comment > suggested to me is that if Rand HAD had children perhaps her > philosophy would have changed or softened in some way. Perhaps. It's > interesting to speculate. > > dj > > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
