This just in: Humans are still scum!

[Birdy]

umm.. not to scare you ollie,

but look into "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.. even though you may not agree with her, it at least makes for interesting philosophy.

it was a page turner for me though, with every sentence ending with a "you're SO RIGHT!"

in it she rejects the idea of altruism and promotes 'selfishness' as a virtue and discusses how on a whole, our society has misconstrued the definition of 'selfish'. She separates the acts of these aid workers noted above into a different category not to be mis-identified. In being 'selfish' one is only looking out for one's own moral well-being and therefore, it really can't be considered a bad thing.

i really enjoyed the essay.

[StoneMtn]

Edited to add: I suppose doing something out of the goodness of one's heart is just a mental trick of the subconcious. Anyone want to point me to a philosopher that tackles this?

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but here's a start:

There's a guy who writes about philosophy of the mind, named Dan Dennett. He argues that altruism came about through a sort of natural evolution. We realized that if we help others to improve their situation, there are benefits to us in the long run; for instance the ability to reproduce and multiply at a greater rate, and other apparent 'goals' of nature.

[bradm]

(I think! I haven't read the Morrow)

Well, not to give too much away, but the protagonist in "Only Begotten Daughter" is able to perform miracles, and when she performs one (or is able to perform one, as I don't think she can perform a miracle at will), well, let's just say she enjoys it very much.

Aloha,

Brad

[d_rawk]

This is actually one of the areas where I don't really disagree with Rand, in that I can generally see where she is coming from and the point that she is trying to make. Nietzche too, who also had some damn hard words - going so far as to condemn it as a "slave morality"

My understanding of Rand in this area, though, is that she doesn't actually condemn altruistic behaviour per se, but rather has problems with it being identified as a concrete virtue and has problems with expected or required altruism (please correct me if I'm wrong ... it has been awhile).

I think that in a sense they are both right, and are appropriately speaking out against ideas that have some currency in their cultures to which they have reservations.

In both cases, though, they are speaking about treating the other as more valuable than the self (this is Nietzche's main objection and definately a large part of Rand's, as well - the sacrifice of self, or the sacrifice of values). I think that in the same way you can detach yourself and say "*that* suffering is as real and as important, objectively, as *my* suffering", one must also by the same criteria realize that to detach yourself you need to acknowledge that "*my* suffering is as real and as important, objectively, as *that* suffering". That is, there is as much wrong done, objectively, from placing another higher than yourself, as there is in placing yourself higher than another.

We tend to be conditioned (and encouraged) to place our own needs so much higher than that of any other, and to give primacy to our own experience/desire/pain/whatever, that there can sometimes be a tendency to swing too far in the other direction once one realizes how untenable that position is (even from a purely rational standpoint). But going too far often means subjugating the self which is still a form of subjugation, or exploitation. It can feel virtuous, but is still counting someone as less valuable than others - even if that 'less valuable' person is you.

Rand and Nietzche (and others) make sense in this light, as a reaction against the excesses of a morality that isn't grounded in contemplation or realization, but rather in obediance to perceived doctrine. I think that Rand may go too far with it at times, but her basic points don't seem entirely incompatible with altruism or compassionate behaviour (though she probably would have liked them to be ...) so much as against the perceived expectation or imagined nobility of self-defeat.

[StoneMtn]

d_rawk: If you haven't yet had the chance, you need to check out Gilles Deleuze on Nietzsche. His theory of "ressentiment" is right up the alley of what you're talking about.

That said, there was a bit of a tizzy about his worldview, in philosophical circles in the mid-90s, after he jumped out of a window and killed himself...

[d_rawk]

I haven't, and the name doesn't ring a bell ... and I need some new reading material. Perfect fit!

Thanks

[edit to add: Was this thread fully hijacked, or what? :laugh:]

Edited May 9, 2006 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Those damn French philosophers... if they're not throwing themselves out of windows, they're shooting their wives, or joining militias, or inspiring insurgents in godforsaken colonies.... It's enough to make you think it's just better not to think.

Btw, Birdy, when I finally get through The DaVinci Code, which I've finally taken on, I'm going to have to read Ayn Rand, but to be honest, I'm all jaded against it from the outset due to all the synopses I've heard about it, so we'll see. At this stage - and this could well change, don't get me wrong - it's always seemed like an unmythologised version of Scientology to me.

[StoneMtn]

Dont knock Ayn until you read her. I've been a fan ever since I read The Fountainhead when I was 15 years old.

Good stuff.

[d_rawk]

Way back when, in an ancient thread (not really ... January actually), I suggested that:

Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists. (not my words. the link is worth the click.)

I'd love to shoot the shit about The DaVinci Code sometime. As a young man, I thought Holy Blood, Holy Grail to be a real page turner. I figure there will be plenty of opportunity to talk about it ad nauseum - and no shortage of forum threads! - after the release of the movie, though, so I'm not chomping at the bit or anything.

[StoneMtn]

That's pretty funny that you wrote that d_rawk, at the same moment as I was saying that I read and enjoyed her as an adolescent. lol

Maybe I need to read some Ayn Rand with adult eyes, now...

[d_rawk]

(replacing strange double post with something worth reading)

"Rape is an integral and necessary expression of human nature. Sexual assaults have been present in every society since the dawn of time. It is the drive of man to reproduce, to compete successfully for advantage on the battlefield of life and evolution. In fact, it is this very competition to reproduce that motivates man to do anything productive and worthwhile in the first place. It is this competition that motivates man to aspire to greatness. Can you imagine men striving for greatness were they not motivated by their drive to reproduce by any means? Of course not, because the drive to reproduce is at the very core of mankind's essence! As long as we disregard silly 'god' superstitions and recognize that a man is ultimately responsible to and for himself, we therefore recognize that any measures that attempt to stifle this natural and inherent drive to reproduce by any means are inherently wrong. To stifle sexual assaults is the perverse anti-human dream of the superstitious or a bloated priestly class, or the self-promoted intelligentsia, which of course is both of these at the same time. In fact, no human society has successfully eliminated rape, despite myriad measures designed to curb sexual assaults. If man were only truly free to pursue this integral part of his nature we would walk as the masters of the Earth that we are!"

Now, anyone will see that this is a glaringly faulty and dangerous chain of reasoning. Just because the drive to reproduce is inherent in humans, and because sexual assault and rape stem from that drive and are a part of human nature and an expression of that nature, and because every society has had sexual assault and none has successfully eliminated rape, that doesn't necessarily mean that sexual assault and rape are good things that should be encouraged, or that there wouldn't be disastrous and apocalyptic consequences were people given carte blanche to rape.

Now, reread the paragraph and replace every occurrence of the words 'sexual assault' with the words 'free markets', replace every occurrence of 'rape' with 'capitalism,' and every occurrence of the word 'reproduce' with 'acquire wealth.' It is now word for word the position of Ayn Rand types.

What have we learned? Certain things might be inherently part of human nature and cannot be completely eliminated, but that isn't a sufficient condition for a logically cohesive argument that they should be encouraged. If you want to argue that they should be encouraged, you must give other reasons.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Guest