I think it will take some good amount of time before people are willing to acknowledge it. But Rand has left her mark on philosophy and no one who looks for an alternative to altruism can go around her. As for her defence of capitalism she did something no economist did.
There’s a difference between rational selfishness and the hedonistic definition of selfishness that most people associate with this word - and Ayn Rand is the former.
A is A, friend. Selfishness is selfishness; hedonism is hedonism. Don't mix them... Selfishness has only one meaning: to take care of your INTERESTS. Then you must understand what "interest" is. Taking drugs, for example, isn't your interest despite someone stating that it could be.
I liked Aristotle's view on this activity. This comes from the larger passage during his rebuttal or Plato's conclusion in The Republic that all property should be owned by no one privately but shared in common. Aristotle points out in The Politics, around lines 1263b1, that the unification of the State from many unequal parts into one uniform equality annihilates what a State is. As a couple of examples he advises that the abolition of privacy destroys the characteristics of liberality and temperance: "Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this, however, is not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the miser’s love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state. The exhibition of two excellences, besides, is visibly annihilated in such a state: first, temperance towards women (for it is an honourable action to abstain from another’s wife for temperance sake); secondly, liberality in the matter of property. No one, when men have all things in common, will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action; for liberality consists in the use which is made of property." - The Politics, by Aristotle, Book II Part 5
1. I think Yaron got it wrong. 2. Suffering is an integral part of our lives. Some people experience extreme forms of suffering. 3. Suffering saints are spiritual examples of how to continue your life despite suffering. They give people hope and spiritual support in hard times. (But I still think that altruism is not compatible with human nature)
Just like reasoning, it does not mean that reasoning automatically results in an accurate identification of the facts of reality, it just means that as your only means of knowledge one should employ the faculty rather than evade or drift. In the same sense, suffering can be intentional, or unitentional, one should not make one’s life intentionally about suffering. Suffering is not our natural state, we should seek values that bring us happiness. Too many people drift, evade and expect to suffer - often for the ‘good’ of society, some for a life beyond the grave. That’s the altruists and mystics credo.
I think it will take some good amount of time before people are willing to acknowledge it. But Rand has left her mark on philosophy and no one who looks for an alternative to altruism can go around her. As for her defence of capitalism she did something no economist did.
There’s a difference between rational selfishness and the hedonistic definition of selfishness that most people associate with this word - and Ayn Rand is the former.
A is A, friend. Selfishness is selfishness; hedonism is hedonism. Don't mix them... Selfishness has only one meaning: to take care of your INTERESTS. Then you must understand what "interest" is. Taking drugs, for example, isn't your interest despite someone stating that it could be.
I liked Aristotle's view on this activity. This comes from the larger passage during his rebuttal or Plato's conclusion in The Republic that all property should be owned by no one privately but shared in common. Aristotle points out in The Politics, around lines 1263b1, that the unification of the State from many unequal parts into one uniform equality annihilates what a State is. As a couple of examples he advises that the abolition of privacy destroys the characteristics of liberality and temperance:
"Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this, however, is not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the miser’s love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state. The exhibition of two excellences, besides, is visibly annihilated in such a state: first, temperance towards women (for it is an honourable action to abstain from another’s wife for temperance sake); secondly, liberality in the matter of property. No one, when men have all things in common, will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action; for liberality consists in the use which is made of property." - The Politics, by Aristotle, Book II Part 5
ok, controversial take; but i will think about it.
Ayn Rand is a gold mine of great quotes in times like this.
That's the problem with most people who read Rand, they are very superficial when they read her and only like her a surface level but never go deeper.
Hear-here.
Just perfect
What a quote
You should look up Christopher Hitchens’ take on Mother Teresa.
Mandela?
1. I think Yaron got it wrong.
2. Suffering is an integral part of our lives. Some people experience extreme forms of suffering.
3. Suffering saints are spiritual examples of how to continue your life despite suffering. They give people hope and spiritual support in hard times.
(But I still think that altruism is not compatible with human nature)
Just like reasoning, it does not mean that reasoning automatically results in an accurate identification of the facts of reality, it just means that as your only means of knowledge one should employ the faculty rather than evade or drift. In the same sense, suffering can be intentional, or unitentional, one should not make one’s life intentionally about suffering. Suffering is not our natural state, we should seek values that bring us happiness. Too many people drift, evade and expect to suffer - often for the ‘good’ of society, some for a life beyond the grave. That’s the altruists and mystics credo.