I have always found Ms. Rand's arguments sound. I don't understand why so many disagree, because those who disagree never have a rational argument. They all end up saying the same thing. "It doesn't feel right." She is not saying be selfish at the expense of others. In fact, she says whoever uses force to get what they want is evil. She speaks of fair trade , not robbery. She is saying be selfish but deal fairly with others. Expect others to be selfish, and looking to get the best deal for themselves. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
They're dishonest. People have free will. They have a choice to be honest or dishonest. So when they hear something that they can't argue against because it's undeniably factually correct, but it goes against their deeply held moral beliefs or the guilt that they feel or the fear of the social repercussions they might face, they simply throw their hands up in the air, say "it doesn't feel right" and just avoid. They're just being dishonest and evading reality. It's as simple as that.
Dissagree. I think hers is a cheap trick of the mind. The libertarian fantasy that a world that is best morally is one where everyone acts within their own self interest. Let me ask you something. Do you think that society would be where it is at if American men didn’t, acting selflessly, go and fight the Nazis who of no real threat to them here in America? Do you think that there will be a world for generations to come if we all continue to act selfishly and ignore climate change as it merely improves our own lives to live as if it didn’t exist, cheapening gas and giving us (At least in our lifetime) an abundance of natural resources? Perhaps you are not educated on history or geo-politics. Say there is a Man (whom the world that can be unfair to entirely by chance, as is the way things are. Nature is rarely just) was crippled by a tree that was fell by lightening. Would a wealthy person not be morally just to use some of their money to help the man despite the fact they are likely to never profit from that scenario? Not according to Ayn, she would say he has no obligation to help his brother. It is a selfish philosophy that does not permit for the betterment of the lives of people in the future. Men (as in mankind) must act selflessly from time to time to further society and make the lives of everyone greater. If everyone did this, then everyone’s lives would be greater. Instead the draw of libertarianism and “justified” self-interest pulls men into states that get you where we are in America. A society where many will not prosper due to the actions of a few acting in their own interest. Where 1% of the population has 40% of the nation’s wealth and the bottom 80% have 7% amongst themselves. You don’t have to agree with my politics but please don’t act so smug like your opinion is so grand no one can challenge it, get out of your own little world and be a man. Be your brothers keeper, a little effort from some people goes a long way with others.
It would seem to me that these tenets play out well when it comes to applying personal responsibility and value to our politics and financial transactions. They also play well into finding mutual benefit through our inherent selfishness. However, when you cross over in the the realm of the spiritual, you are in a different realm entirely. Love is something that is much higher than our own happiness and "good" choices. It can result in mutual benefit and happiness, but it also requires sacrifice and a realization that life doesn't center around our own well-being.
Seems to be a little contradictory. She generally believes selfishness is good but seems to regard it as bad in regards to romantic love (eros). She says charity can be granted based on your evaluation of a person, but your evaluation of a person in romantic love is "selfish" (an in this case "bad').
they aren't mutually exclusive. Her belief is that romantic love is the love of the good things that the partners gain from each other. She believes in loving people for their virtues and what they bring to a persons life.
mughat Who decides what's valuable? I'm not saying don't make yourself useful to others. I just see her as a lonely old bird. Certain people that aren't blessed with good looks will often twist reality so that their existence has value. I feel like that's how she compensated.
Wasn't she in love with Alan Greenspan but he eventually rejected her and went off with another member of their collective, causing the green-eyed monster of jealousy to emerge? This could be her bitter reaction to that experience, trying to rationally justify it. Anyway, what K Dub quoted from Jesus Christ is good advice, because we are eternal creatures. Jesus often compared the temporal to the eternal. For instance, "What does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, but lose his own soul." Jesus broke all the law down into: Love God and love your neighbour as you love yourself. Many know this as the Golden Rule.
I have always found Ms. Rand's arguments sound. I don't understand why so many disagree, because those who disagree never have a rational argument. They all end up saying the same thing. "It doesn't feel right."
She is not saying be selfish at the expense of others. In fact, she says whoever uses force to get what they want is evil. She speaks of fair trade , not robbery.
She is saying be selfish but deal fairly with others. Expect others to be selfish, and looking to get the best deal for themselves.
I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
They're dishonest.
People have free will. They have a choice to be honest or dishonest. So when they hear something that they can't argue against because it's undeniably factually correct, but it goes against their deeply held moral beliefs or the guilt that they feel or the fear of the social repercussions they might face, they simply throw their hands up in the air, say "it doesn't feel right" and just avoid. They're just being dishonest and evading reality. It's as simple as that.
Dissagree. I think hers is a cheap trick of the mind. The libertarian fantasy that a world that is best morally is one where everyone acts within their own self interest. Let me ask you something. Do you think that society would be where it is at if American men didn’t, acting selflessly, go and fight the Nazis who of no real threat to them here in America? Do you think that there will be a world for generations to come if we all continue to act selfishly and ignore climate change as it merely improves our own lives to live as if it didn’t exist, cheapening gas and giving us (At least in our lifetime) an abundance of natural resources? Perhaps you are not educated on history or geo-politics. Say there is a Man (whom the world that can be unfair to entirely by chance, as is the way things are. Nature is rarely just) was crippled by a tree that was fell by lightening. Would a wealthy person not be morally just to use some of their money to help the man despite the fact they are likely to never profit from that scenario? Not according to Ayn, she would say he has no obligation to help his brother. It is a selfish philosophy that does not permit for the betterment of the lives of people in the future. Men (as in mankind) must act selflessly from time to time to further society and make the lives of everyone greater. If everyone did this, then everyone’s lives would be greater. Instead the draw of libertarianism and “justified” self-interest pulls men into states that get you where we are in America. A society where many will not prosper due to the actions of a few acting in their own interest. Where 1% of the population has 40% of the nation’s wealth and the bottom 80% have 7% amongst themselves. You don’t have to agree with my politics but please don’t act so smug like your opinion is so grand no one can challenge it, get out of your own little world and be a man. Be your brothers keeper, a little effort from some people goes a long way with others.
A little grace and mercy go a long way...
It would seem to me that these tenets play out well when it comes to applying personal responsibility and value to our politics and financial transactions. They also play well into finding mutual benefit through our inherent selfishness. However, when you cross over in the the realm of the spiritual, you are in a different realm entirely. Love is something that is much higher than our own happiness and "good" choices. It can result in mutual benefit and happiness, but it also requires sacrifice and a realization that life doesn't center around our own well-being.
yes!!!!!!!
Seems to be a little contradictory. She generally believes selfishness is good but seems to regard it as bad in regards to romantic love (eros). She says charity can be granted based on your evaluation of a person, but your evaluation of a person in romantic love is "selfish" (an in this case "bad').
Arandor Thinnorion she doesn’t view selfishness as a bad thing
So she concludes romantic love is good since objectivism holds that selfishness is good.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html
they aren't mutually exclusive. Her belief is that romantic love is the love of the good things that the partners gain from each other. She believes in loving people for their virtues and what they bring to a persons life.
Terrible philosophy. Giving is better than receiving. Store up treasure in heaven because this earthly existence will soon pass.
I disagree. Creating value is the key to life.
mughat Who decides what's valuable? I'm not saying don't make yourself useful to others. I just see her as a lonely old bird. Certain people that aren't blessed with good looks will often twist reality so that their existence has value. I feel like that's how she compensated.
Your life is the standard of value. You discover it using your reason. She is my philosophical idol.
mughat She would scoff and rebuke your admiration.
Wasn't she in love with Alan Greenspan but he eventually rejected her and went off with another member of their collective, causing the green-eyed monster of jealousy to emerge? This could be her bitter reaction to that experience, trying to rationally justify it.
Anyway, what K Dub quoted from Jesus Christ is good advice, because we are eternal creatures. Jesus often compared the temporal to the eternal. For instance, "What does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, but lose his own soul."
Jesus broke all the law down into: Love God and love your neighbour as you love yourself.
Many know this as the Golden Rule.