Posted on 04/29/2002 9:34:41 AM PDT by Korth
after getting her nursing degree she took a job in the US, married and became a physician. she has not been back to england for 30 years.
what opened a window for her, to envision a different life? american movies, depicting a life of prosperity and order. her teachers were nuns, some tyrants and some merciful. they gave her the tools to start on her way out.
just think what window American movies and tv open today.
Mrs VS
Ayn Rand's book is most relevant where this article contradicts it. Note that the best people in the article -- the teachers of Dalrymple's father -- behaved altruistically.
Get thee to a library (or Amazon...). Dalrymple is a fine read.
"Ayn Rand's book is most relevant where this article contradicts it. Note that the best people in the article -- the teachers of Dalrymple's father -- behaved altruistically.
Not so. If one finds a value, even if it is not a monetary value - and is just a good feeling in helping others - THAT is not altruism. Altruism is the moral arguement that one must not derive any satisfaction, or benefit in any fashion from the help that one gives to others. If one benefits from an altruistic deed - either by monetary value or even by simply having a warm fuzzy feeling- they have acted "selfishly" not SELF-LESSLY which is what Rand railed against. The whole culture that the author of this book is describing is the SELFLESS behaviour of ideology that promotes landscapes such as the horrifying one depicted here.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will, or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altrusim makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self sacrifice -- which means: self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good." -- Ayn Rand, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World."
"Political correct" speech is creating a path that when walked, results in severe limits on thought. When language is deleted as being 'hate' speech, our concepts diminish, and we lose whole areas of dialogue with every limit imposed in the name of political correctness. Very stupid to walk this way. We may be entering through a different door but the destination is the same. Loss of quality, loss of standards, loss of knowledge, with all its ramifications. Changes brings side effects, many of which are destructive, dangerous and deadly.
Thanks for the thought provoking article.
LOL! Good old Ayn Rand. She turns altruism into an unalterable evil by supplying her own definition which conveniently excludes any good motive. Well, if Ayn gets to define altruism, then so does Noah Webster:
1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
Neither of these definitions precludes the good will, kindness, or respect for rights, that Ayn says is not part of altruism as she defines it.
Before going on, let's first note that the actions of the modern-day social workers in this article aren't "altruistic" by any definition, Randian or otherwise. Those folks make a good living -- it's the people they "help" who are the ones getting hurt.
Nor were the teachers altruistic by Rand's definition. Sure, they practiced self-sacrifice and self-denial, but they did it in pursuit of an obvious good.
But that's just the problem: one is hard-pressed to find any cases in the real world where Randian altruism is actually practiced. Trying to figure out whether or not something is "altruism" according to Rand's definition, is also highly subjective, which presents a rather unfortunate difficulty to the devoted objectivist.
Rand makes the insupportable claim that this equivalence is an embodiment of evil: self sacrifice -- which means: self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction.
Let's look at some examples of each of these, and see if we can find some exceptions where these are not necessarily evil.
Self-sacrifice: From Webster, "sacrifice of oneself or one's interest for others or for a cause or ideal." Always bad? Not hardly.
Self-destruction: In a discussion of altruism, "self-destruction" is apparently synonymous with the ultimate in self-sacrifice. But it's not always a bad thing: consider the man who with full knowledge sacrifices his life in battle to save the lives of his comrades, or the mother who dies to save her children. Their deaths are generally considered to be tragic, but it's generally recognized that their acts served a greater good. It's certainly impossible to say that "altruistic self-destruction" is always a bad thing.
Self-denial: (synonymous with self-abnegation). According to Webster: "a restraint or limitation of one's own desires or interests." Giving money to charity rather than spending it on a new car.
There are various obvious objectivist rejoinders here, most of which boil down to ascribing good motives to otherwise self-sacrificial actions -- thus rendering them "not altruism" according to Rand.
Now let's turn to that title: "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World."
From the implication that Faith=Destruction one begins to suspect that Rand's version of altruism is simply an outgrowth her atheism. She does not consider the possibility that her "objective reality" could ever include God -- in which case God's Will cannot be included in the set of "good intentions."
On this count, we need only point out that Ayn Rand's own objectivism is logically insupportable precisely because it it is explicitly atheist. Consider this, from Rand's own summary of objectivism:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Of course, a quick look at objective reality reveals that "force" is the order of the day in nature. Without God, nature is all there is -- so at the very least, use of force is not morally precluded. For humans to be excluded from the rest of nature, their morality must have a source separate from the "objective reality" on which Rand pretends to have cornered the market.
And, of course, Rand's position ultimately allows her to ignore the example of Jesus Christ -- which is ironic, considering that her objectivism is nothing but a mangled rehash of the moral principles that Christianity had developed centuries before her time.
Faith and force -- religions and governments -- the greatest threats to human life to ever exist.
I don't believe you even thoughtonce before making that comment.
Great article, although "sad" is probably too mild a description.
Ortega y Gasset forecast the entire 20th (and, probably, 21st) century. Read his The Revolt of the Masses ("La Rebelión de las Masas") for details.
Also, philosophically inclined persons might like Ortega y Gasset's disciple, Julián Marías. Unfortunately, very little of his work has been translated from the Spanish. I'd love to translate it, but, alas, I don't think there's much of a market for it in modern publisher-land. The truths are too close to home.
Faith and force -- close coordination between religions and governments involving people like witch doctors and tribal chiefs -- bishops and kings -- government controlled "religions" and dictators -- working together fo create the greatest power combination threatening human life ever known to exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.