Originally posted by jsobecky
Because altruism requires victims.
I guess she could have just shunned it.
And also, what's this about altruism requires victims. I think Ayn Rand needs to define her terms. If a CEO takes a pay cut to keep from laying off
his workers, it can be motivated by a lot of factors, all good. Now please get on with the exhaustive discussion about how I don't understand the
word altruism. I'm ready.
Cut to chase: If Ayn Rand had a brain and actually knew that the Military Industrial Complex of Russia was built and supported by Wall Street, why
didn't she just come out and say that? Now that is really the only level on which her thinking applies and yet she was totally politically clueless.
Whereas she gave no creedence to truth of conspiracy in her own lifetime, she fails the main litmus test in my eyes. I'll take Ezra Pound over Ayn
Rand any day.
What is the definition of selfishness?
Ah, so you know the 'real, eclectic' meaning of words.
Damn that Ayn Rand for trying to be esoteric with us!
Well yes, actually. Words are more than concepts. There is a gap between what the dictionary says and what people say and do. Where's the word
"holla", in the dictionary? Now even a genius like yourself or AR (who would say it is a non-word probably) has enough cultural IQ to know that it
means something like "Hey, we'll be talking later!".
Now step up just a little bit and you can see that "selfish" means not "thinking of self" --because if I wanted to express that concept I'd say,
"Hey quit being so self-centered" or "Yo man, really, you're egotistical." Ah yes but it is Ayn Rand who will explain to us what words mean
and how they'll be used.
Tell me more about these people who ask you to live for them. Are they female, black or pregnant much? So like Octomom is the ultimate evil because
she's victimizing the rest of us by having babies that the state has to support? I mean, if you believe that altruism requires victims?
I think there is much room for continued discussion here.
Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Originally posted by smallpeeps
Yeah but did she really need to "abhor" it?
Yes because her definition of altruism was sacrificing oneself to others.
She took it too far. Please see that. Your words here are way overboard because what she did was make it PERSONAL. And that is offensive to a lot
of people who give to others for no other reason than to feel good about it. I know Ghandi may have been a political tool like Ayn Rand (useful
idiots as Yuri Bezmenof would say), but there is merit in both person, Ghandi and Ayn.
Really now, couldn't she have just, disliked it?
Suppose someone tells you that they need all the material things you have earned throughout your lifetime for them to be happy.
Every Objectovist discussion becomes a supposition in absurdity eventually, so thanks for getting right to the point.
Is this supposed to pass for real intellectual thought? Imagining that some person wants to eat my labor and crush me?? --OH WAIT it actually is
true but Ayn Rand totally missed the mark as to who is doing it! She was totally clueless about the real world while she simultaneously imagined
situations like yours above and like where "two rational men are in a rowboat with one lone woman.." Please already, because as Ayn Rand knows:
When the SHTF, people follow their urges and then rationalize it later. Maybe she avoided real conspiracy or controversy not because she was stupid
(she wasn't) but because she knew that politics and sex go hand in hand and she maybe was afraid of what she'd find if she really investigated her
country's relationship with the US money-power? Did Ayn Rand even read Anthony Sutton? How could she have sopent her whole illuminated life and not
have read his books on Wall street and Hitler, Wall Street and Stalin, etc, etc?? Massive blind spot, or...?
I would like to ask you a question. If you believe in altruism, why not live it fully? Why not remove the word NO from your mind and refuse nothing
anybody asks of you? What kind of life would you be living? How much thinking would you accomplish if you never had to make a judgement and be a mere
slave at the whim of your neighbors?
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Now notice the spirit of his words but also how he says "borrow" at the end? So he wasn't saying "Give all your crap away" though he did test
some money-lovers and rich people with that command and some of them kept their crap rather than gaining life. That is, if you believe in the value
of the gospel. Randites generally do not.
Check it: There was a dude named Solomon Tulbure (not sure if it was his real name) who wrote a book not too long ago called the "Illuminati
Manifesto" and then shortly after that was found dead, either suicide(d) or whatever. The point is this: His book is a very interesting read
because even as just a picture into what Objectivist though can become, it is chilling. He spends the whole book ranting against Jesus and on behalf
of Mammon. I recommend this book to anybody and also here's a site where you can go down the Maximumus
Illuminati rabbit hole
. Probably his work is of the more honest god-hating works I've seen or read. Too bad he also did not get therapy (or
did he?) hmmm...
Are you saying that...
No, I'm not.