The Vindication of Ayn Rand

The Autonomist ^ | 03/11/05 | Cass Hewitt

[FreeKeys]

You misunderstood altruism.

As a 12-year old I misunderstood YOUR altruism; but it WAS the pure altruism of Immanuel Kant, Auguste Comte AND MY PARENTS -- and the parents of many other youths who actually did commit suicide, possibly including that 14-year-old prodigy last week. For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good.

Part of my thinking at the time was, well, if I helped anyone, then I WOULD GET A BENEFIT FROM A BETTER WORLD, and even if it were incrementally better world I WOULD STILL GET A BENEFIT AND THEREFORE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVIL -- unless I killed myself immediately upon doing the good deed, so I wouldn't benefit. OR else -- get this -- I could help a criminal, NOT TO REFORM -- BUT TO BE A CRIMINAL. Then I'd be "helping" someone and NOT GETTING A BENEFIT -- but that was obviously ludicrous.

These were pretty heavy thoughts for a thoughtful kid who wanted to be good, but couldn't figure out how with the corrupted teachings I was given. Have you ever had to work through inner turmoil and conflict because of corrupted teachings yourself? It can be crushing for a sickly kid with poor guidance, if any. Castigating a 12-year-old kid for "misunderstanding" something still shows a stark lack of compassion on your part, IMO.

[annalex]

Now you are not a 12 year old, so my lack of compassion to your confusion a long time ago does not translate to a lack of compassion to you, -- and beside, my shortcomings are not exactly the point, are they?

If Rand was opposed to the idea that one is under the moral and political obligation of the individual to kill himself, then she was right, of course, in her opposition. But she built nothing positive out of that.

I'd be willing to continue this, but not tonight. Feel free to explore more, it is a good topic, and I did not mean to come across brusque.

[FreeKeys]

Fair enough. Me either. 'Night!

[BradyLS]

It wouldn't be charity -- or altruism, -- if by giving of myself I gave something bad. What is given in charity is by definition good, so the giver, who gives of himself, must be good.

Why are you using these terms interchangeably? They don't have interchangeable meanings. They don't even refer to one another.

ALTRUISM
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

CHARITY
1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity. The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

--According to Dictionary.com

Altruism is not selective. It is indescriminate. It does not consider the need or plenty of the recipients. It is concern for others potentially to the cost of one's self.

Charity is an act which discriminates to the benefit of the needy. It is also a conscious attitude of benevolence to others. It presumes continuity of the self to maintain it. Even Christian charity, which seems quite altruistic, requires the giver to think of one's self as well.

A gift that is given without discrimination or thought is not charity. Nor is the choice to die so that others may live. Neither set of definitions bestow inherent "goodness" on the act or the giver. I would say goodness about the act or the giver depends upon the context surrounding the event.

[WhiteGuy]

"... have found her philosophy vastly more compelling, life-saving, inspiring and ennobling than anything else..."

Well said.

[CSM]

"I don't know where Rand discusses abortion, but she was pro-abortion. I don't know why."

An assertion on your part, yet you can not point me in the direction to where to find proof of your assertion. Until you can show me specific examples or documentation of your assertion, I'm not willing to blindly believe your assertion.

"The Libertarian Party platform says that they are against the government paying for abortions and they are against the government prohibiting them. Don't ask me to explain this either."

Do they believe this at the Federal level and leave the legality of it to the States?

[CSM]

"hack writer's awkward attempt to paint Simon Legree mustaches..." THEN "or mount an ad hominem attack on the critic,.."

Anything seem hypocritical in your post?

What has the asbestos lawsuit industry done and how is that comparable to the train wreck story.....Well, for starters, billions in cash is being wrung from the economy to "purge" buildings of asbestos, lawsuits have successfully put hundreds/thousands of productive companies out of business, litigators have gotten very wealthy and true victims have hardly seen anything.

On top of that, how much longer would the Trade Center have stayed intact if it still had the structural protection of asbestos?

Could it be that parasites and lazy people cause catastrophes or at minimum exacerbate the situation?

[CSM]

"What is given in charity is by definition good, so the giver, who gives of himself, must be good."

Would you consider the United Way contributions "good" even though they were used in fraudulant manners? How about charitable contributions given to the International Red Cross? The oil for food program?

Need I continue with charity that is not by definition good?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Askel5 wrote:
Please, you're speaking to a Catholic. Not some lobotomized Bibliolator or Enlightened.

I have told you both (BE and CfromECUSA) that Catholicism, at least in the United States, is an over-intellectualized, urban, immigrant religion whose opinion for the most part of American Heartland culture is no different from that of our "Blue State" elites. I have never understood why Catholics were so prominent in a movement that supposedly celebrates the American Heartland when they have such a low opinion of its people.

I call your attention to Askel5's witty little mot about "lobotomized Bibliolator[s]." Now first of all, Catholics always react with the greatest offense when accused of "Mariolatry" or worhsip of statues. Yet many of them seem not to notice the irony in turning right around and branding their Fundamentalist Protestants with an "olotry." I ask you both in all seriousness: is the charge of "Bibliolatry" one whit more applicable than the common anti-Catholic charges? Yet Catholics who bristle at Fundamentalist insults feel absolutely no compunction about turning right around and doing the same thing.

I would point out another important thing: it is well known that American Heartlanders bristle at the hypocrisy of being labelled "stupid," "lazy," "white trash," etc., by people who make a career of defending Blacks and Hispanics from identical charges. May I ask why Catholics do not understand that similar charges of stupidity are equally hypocritical coming from members of a Church the majority of whose members throughout history have been illiterate peasants? Is it not at bottom a simple assertion of genetic cultural supremacy, ie, "our illiterate peasants are all honorary intellecutals but yours are objects of ridicule?" Just why should I resent this attitude one iota less than the same attitude when evinced by Blacks (for example)?

Every culture in the world is full of simple people. May I suggest that insulting those belonging to another culture while ignoring one's own is a form of ethnic bigotry?

And by the way, I notice that "lobotomized Bibliolators" don't have a plague of lisping, mincing, evolutionist, higher critical clergy and theologians cowering from liberalism while leading crusades against war and the death penalty. Considering the vast gulf in quality of leadership, I don't think any Catholic has any reason to snipe at "Bibliolators." Perhaps the Catholic Church would be better off if its clergy were less intellectual.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Er, no hypocrisy I can detect, young Randian, and a little confused by your use of the word in this context. That aside, I was critiquing her shallow, overbearing attempt to make otherwise sympathetic victims of a train disaster into highly unsympathetic parasites who, according to your Guiding Light, deserved what was coming to them. Any novelist or painter attempting to pound home a political point is a propagandist, not an artist. Unless presented as an allegory, such as Orwell's 'Animal Farm', or possessing incredible literary or artistic gifts, such as Orwell (again) or Kathe Kollwitz, the work of a propagandist is usually didactic, superficial, and false. Rand was neither capable of successful allegory nor possessed of extraordinary literary gifts. Her philosophy, such as it is, is a flagrant, pale imitation of Nietszche--who at least had the intellectual humility to recognize that some of his ideas--like eternal recurrence of the same--were probably wrong. 'Humility' and 'Ayn Rand' are mutually exclusive terms.

I'm not an architect or engineer, so I can't address the whole asbestos, World Trade Center deal. And while it's true that some people contribute to their own destruction in some way, large or small, it is equally true that bad choices are not confined to 'parasites or lazy people'. (Use of the dehumanizing term 'parasites' says worlds about your leader's philosophy, by the way. It allows self-styled elites to rationalize, say, foisting off nonsense disguised as Deep Truth on an unsuspecting public.)

[Convert from ECUSA]

"Lobotomized Bibliolator" is equivalent to calling Catholics "Mariolatrists". I was called similar things when I was Evagelical by non-Christians. With all the recent scandals of much of Catholic leadership in recent years, to say nothing of the continued lack of disciplining (and excommunication if needed) for "intellectuals" like the infamous Fr. Greeley and Cardinal Mahoney, etc., who have shown that they long ago kicked the Lord and the Church out of their hearts, maybe we Catholics have enough to clean up in our own house without sneering at other Christians who may not be like us.

[CSM]

You really should re-read your posts with a condradiction meter prior to posting.

Babble on.....

[Rembrandt_fan]

Right back at you, sport. Always nice to have it out with empty-headed, glassy-eyed cult members, although it doesn't present much of an intellectual challenge.

[Rembrandt_fan]

A 'condradiction meter'? (chuckle)

[CSM]

"Always nice to have it out with empty-headed, glassy-eyed cult members..."

What was that you said about ad hom. attacks?

[CSM]

One more thing, do you feel compassion for the people of Sodom and Gomorra? (spelling police feel free to correct my spelling.)

[annalex]

I will be on the road this week anbd will respond to all of you when I come back.

[Rembrandt_fan]

An ad hominem fallacy is one wherein the character of a person is impugned to discredit his argument, rather than debating the points of his argument directly. Ad hominem translates as 'at (or to) the man'. Thus, calling you and your like-minded friends cult members is not an ad hominem attack. I do so directly--and correctly--using a method my attorney father called the duck test: 'If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.' Empty heads and glassy, vacant stares are common attributes of cult members, thus that particular allusion.

Of course I feel compassion for the dead in those two now-defunct cities. 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is a central tenet of my faith. Surprised, though, that an objectivist would use a Biblical reference. I would think someone ascribing to Ayn Rand's belief system would draw from a different well.

[CSM]

Let's see, you call me a cult member with an empty head and a glassy stare, then you admit to blindly following certain tenents of your faith. Finally, you admit to being surprised with my thinking outside of the supposed cult I am following.

Makes me wonder who is the cult member, by your description, with an empty head and glassy eyes.

I never said I agreed with Ayn Rand 100% of the time, in fact I said that I haven't read very much of her work. What I have read has made some very good philosophical arguments for the free market and capitalism. I always hear people try to degrade her philosophy with certain claims, yet I have yet to actually have these claims of her positions documented. If they exist, then I am more than willing to take a look at it and make the decision after reading it.

[jackbob]

You contradict yourself. Quoting me first, you then replied "same here" to my statement that "Rand has had a tremendous influence on me and my opinions." You then say you "stand by" your "epithet of 'pitiful.'" Which was expressed in the context of "let us not pretend that her... philosophy ever convinced anyone outside of a very narrow circle of fellow-theorizers." If that be the case, then explain how she had a "tremendous influence on" you and your "opinions."