Tenderlysharp

I am excited for you! When I found Rand, I couldn't stop reading her. I just kept going from one book to the next! I know many members here who have told their similar experiences when they first discovered Rand. Besides her ideas, my favorite thing about her writing is her clarity in style. It's like fresh cold air for the mind.

The title of this thread asks: "Can an altruist be happy?" However, to someone who is actually trying to decide how to act, a better starting point is something like: if I make myself less selfish and more altruistic than what I am now, will I be happier? I think this is a more useful question. otherwise, the discussion tends to focus on "perfect" examples (either of altruism or pf egoism), and those are often less easy to consider as concretes.

Summing someone up as a fundamentally rational or fundamentally irrational person takes a lot more than just knowing whether they believe in God.

As a minor note, I'm not here referring to the irreason of being a Full Altruist. After all, you're right; peoples be trippin'.

But what I mean is that, if the motivation for your every action was to benefit others, without regard to whether those actions also benefited yourself, I think you'd find it difficult to stay alive very long. I don't believe that altruism is conducive to human survival (or happiness, which is how I'd answer the thread's central query), and so I don't expect that a Full Altruist would live long or be happy for the duration.

Happiness and survival both have requirements, per their nature, and in reality. To achieve either for the self requires a particular plan of action; selfishness -- as opposed to altruism -- greenlights their direct pursuit. Any success outside of selfish activity, where life or happiness are concerned, are therefore incidental. And since I'd suspect that it's hard to luck into survival and happiness, I just can't rate the prospects of an Altruist very highly.

Now when we're talking about specific people (or even systems, like Christianity), we're again talking about mixed bags. A person -- even one who thinks of himself as "altruistic" or "Christian" -- will often be acting out of selfish motives. To suss out their specific motivations in any given instance, and to relate those to the outcomes where the quality of their life is concerned, is a horrendously difficult project.

This is why we must approach this topic via principles. It isn't that a given "altruist" cannot be happy at a given moment in their life; it's that altruism does not lead to happiness.



Welllllll... I agree that what you've said above is a Christian sentiment, but we ultimately run into walls where Christianity is concerned, because God doesn't exist and so forth, and as I've said, there are a ton of inconsistencies. Anyways, I'd argue that the business of the Christian -- really -- is whatever God says it is. Christianity requires of the Christian that he surrender his own mind, judgment and will; that he turn them all over to a "higher power."

And, once again, there's no such thing as the direct pursuit of salvation. Salvation is triggered through Grace, which is divine, unearned charity. So if anyone's business is salvation, it can only be God's. Which falls in line with the greater Judeo-Christian message; what counts, really, is God's glorification. If a man could earn his own salvation, then he could take credit for it. But this would be Pride; taking credit for that which came from God. A "Christian" who took credit for his soul's salvation would be branded a heretic. He must instead repeat the litany that man is a worthless sinner, and that God deserves all of the credit and all of the gratitude for saving his soul.




"Like to believe"? This has nothing to do with what I'd "like to believe." If I could magic wand the universe, it'd all be unicorns and rainbows, I assure you. And further, if Christianity were less toxic than I've otherwise concluded, I would count that a good thing. But I'm afraid that the fact that you've not seen these types of behaviors don't demonstrate that Christianity doesn't lead to them.

We're agreed that people are mixed bags, right? Christians come from all sorts of backgrounds and accept strains of all kinds of different (conflicting and inconsistent) philosophical beliefs and tenets. There are "Christians" who never read the Bible or go to church. There are New Age Christians who argue that all religious traditions are ultimately equal. Even a fundamentalist, who are typically thought of as being "extreme" in their faith, when we meet them in modern Western society will have been raised in an environment of relative political liberty and a tradition of tolerance for other creeds, etc.

Why don't the Christians on Main Street, USA whip themselves? I think it's less to do with Christianity and more to do with Main Street, USA.

After all, how "serious" are the Christians you've met about their faith? As serious as Torquemada? As serious as the Flagellants of the late Middle Ages Europe? What I'd argue is that the "more Christian" a man becomes, the closer he comes to these sorts of mindsets. Fortunately for us all, 21st Century Christianity is regularly tempered by a more-enlightened environment, which does not allow Christianity's full "fruits" to manifest, either in society or in an individual man's soul. That said, Christianity preserves its tendency, which is precisely what we must determine -- not the behaviors any one or handful of particulars -- if we want to examine Christianity, as such.



Whether "meaning" and "purpose" contribute to a man's happiness is utterly contingent on the content of that meaning and purpose. If my meaning and purpose involve the wholesale destruction of others, I will not have lived a "well-lived life."

So we can't abstract meaning and purpose and say, in isolation, that they are "important ingredients." If religion provides "meaning" and "purpose," that doesn't mean that religion thereby contributes to man's happiness. A religion that provides the meaning of "you are God's pawn" and the purpose of "bow down and worship your master" will not lead men to happiness.



I'm neither equipped nor inclined to discuss the particulars of your decision at present. Suffice it to say that, if you're prepared to abandon whatever religion *should* it be shown to lead to your personal pain and ruin, that's enough for me for now. To tie it back to the main theme of the thread, that's the very standard -- your happiness and life versus your pain and ruin -- that should apply. Altruism, contrarily, would hold that your personal happiness versus pain, is immaterial; that instead, you should do whatever is best for others.

Emotions are not tools of cognition they are a reaction to cognition. It is important to investigate your emotions in order to learn how to bring your emotions into harmony with your cognition. The more you practice this the less at odds with your emotions you will become.

A feeling of dissatisfaction could be misinterpreted as a lack of self esteem when actually your cognitive abilities are restless for more knowledge to tackle greater challenges. Maybe goals need to be reorganized and prioritized.

Answer's reveal a person's priorities. I am usually more interested in having discussions about Ayn Rand with people on this forum, or with those whom I know personally.

Be aware that he is setting you up for a "gotcha", he already believes anyone who responds is only responding mindlessly from the "cult". This paradigm he has already created is a sign that he may not respond favorably, but he is not essential. The essential you are aiming for is anyone in your audience who might be rational. You don't have to overtly tell the antagonist that he is not essential, but keep it in mind when forming your argument.

Building a common premise gives more of a foundation to stand on. Ask questions at first, questions that relate to something the two of you may already have in common. Rather than jumping out of the gate in opposition, appeal to what ever rational faculty he may have. For instance, he does not like cults. Figure out what can be construed as cult like behavior. Then, Illustrate how Ayn Rand is in opposition to cults?

What about Objectivism seems like a cult? Being sure, having convictions, a superior attitude, being closed minded... all make people afraid of cults. Pragmatism is a rebellion against absolute certainty, it has also been used as a self defense against various cults that have risen up throughout history.

I would say:
"What is wrong with freedom of speech, independence, self respect, reason, rationality, focus, the necessity of choice, volition? A cult is diametrically opposed to all of these. Cults thrive on selfless, defenseless, irrational, dazed people who never made or wanted to make an important choice in their lives, and they give that choice over to the power of the cult. Ayn Rand was opposed to cult like behavior. She valued argument, and questioning. She wanted fully conscious, focused, thoughtful people in her life. She wasn't opposed to charity or benevolence, she simply meant it is impossible to give genuinely if one is forced to give at the point of a gun. Because when generosity is forced, expected, and unappreciated it naturally turns into resentment. No one's life is yours to waste. I don't expect you to believe anything I say without thinking about it."

I have been thinking it is "self defense" that those opposed to Objectivism seem to feel so threatened by. Delve deeply into many of these random online conversations and you will see how controlling the antagonist usually is, how he projects his own control issues onto Objectivism. I have observed that he becomes insecure when his usual emotional manipulation tactics don't work against Objectivists. He uses emotion as a tool of cognition and so his attacks intensify in search of an emotional response.

Being a closed system doesn't mean mankind can't gain new knowledge, it means that Ayn Rand is no longer here to defend herself, nor to admit where she might have been wrong. There were times when she admitted she was wrong while she was alive, and amended her position.

Why did Ayn Rand believe that certain types of modern art, certain types of modern dance, certain types of modern music have a disintegrating effect on consciousness?
Why is integration/“dis”integration important enough for her to refrain from giving work she perceived as disintegrating the title “Art”?


Integration is a key concept in the formation of Existence/Identity/Consciousness.


Non-objective art seems to project a world that does not exist, void of anything that could be construed as existing in reality. How does existence integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

What is the significance of purposefully barring the inclusion of an entity, an identity, from non-objective art? How does Identity integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

How is the mind to concretize broad abstractions based on context of what is in their perception when viewing non-objective art? How does Consciousness integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

If non-objective art seems to be what ever the viewer wants it to be, how does this concept apply to the rest of the viewers existence?

Why did Ayn Rand believe that certain types of modern art, certain types of modern dance, certain types of modern music have a disintegrating effect on consciousness?
Why is integration/“dis”integration important enough for her to refrain from giving work she perceived as disintegrating the title “Art”?


Integration is a key concept in the formation of Existence/Identity/Consciousness.


Non-objective art seems to project a world that does not exist, void of anything that could be construed as existing in reality. How does existence integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

What is the significance of purposefully barring the inclusion of an entity, an identity, from non-objective art? How does Identity integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

How is the mind to concretize broad abstractions based on context of what is in their perception when viewing non-objective art? How does Consciousness integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

If non-objective art seems to be what ever the viewer wants it to be, how does this concept apply to the rest of the viewers existence?

Well TS I was able to find a full copy of Gault's speech via a Google search. So I'll look into it in a week or so once I get off school. And if I come to any revelations I'll get back to you. Thanks regardless.

"Rational" is the word you keep missing when Objectivists talk about self interest. The self interest of a plant is less than the self interest of an animal, the self interest of an animal is less than the self interest of a human. When Ayn Rand talks about a man she is talking about a rational consciousness. The self interest necessary for the “Rational” to survive.

A human being is not a natural resource, he is not coal to be mined, he is not a crop to be harvested, he is not to be taken out of context of his nature. His nature requires freedom in order to live up to his highest potential, his mind can not function as a slave. The concept of slavery has only been eradicated in the last hundred years. The concept of being egomaniacal and the concept of altruism are remnants of that slave mentality. A man who is interested in himself does not need to enslave, he does not need to allow anyone else to enslave him. Why should Objectivists leave the word self interest in the custody of slave drivers?

Objectivism is not for those who wish to be slaves, nor for those who wish to enslave. It reveals to a Rational Man that unearned guilt, unjustified fear, and his consent are the only things a parasite needs to keep him a slave. It teaches man that he is not a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, he is responsible for feeding his own destroyers.

What you may be wondering is if it is worth your time to read about Objectivism. An Objectivist doesn't want you to take anything from any authority but the rationality of your own mind. I could tell you that the 64 pages of “This Is John Gault Speaking” in Atlas Shrugged are 64 of the most important pages written in human history, but why should you take it on my authority?

I am wondering if it is worth my time to encourage you to read one book, no one can read the book for you, and no Objectivist wants to waste their time on someone who doesn't want to invest their own time on Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand said it so eloquently, and thoroughly, and she already spent her time saying it, it seems redundant to spend our time saying it.

The six books I have read of hers over and over again have expanded my consciousness. I am so much more powerful and alive, it is tragic to me to remember the time before I had them. No one can give that to you, it is something you have to earn.

"Rational" is the word you keep missing when Objectivists talk about self interest. The self interest of a plant is less than the self interest of an animal, the self interest of an animal is less than the self interest of a human. When Ayn Rand talks about a man she is talking about a rational consciousness. The self interest necessary for the “Rational” to survive.

A human being is not a natural resource, he is not coal to be mined, he is not a crop to be harvested, he is not to be taken out of context of his nature. His nature requires freedom in order to live up to his highest potential, his mind can not function as a slave. The concept of slavery has only been eradicated in the last hundred years. The concept of being egomaniacal and the concept of altruism are remnants of that slave mentality. A man who is interested in himself does not need to enslave, he does not need to allow anyone else to enslave him. Why should Objectivists leave the word self interest in the custody of slave drivers?

Objectivism is not for those who wish to be slaves, nor for those who wish to enslave. It reveals to a Rational Man that unearned guilt, unjustified fear, and his consent are the only things a parasite needs to keep him a slave. It teaches man that he is not a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, he is responsible for feeding his own destroyers.

What you may be wondering is if it is worth your time to read about Objectivism. An Objectivist doesn't want you to take anything from any authority but the rationality of your own mind. I could tell you that the 64 pages of “This Is John Gault Speaking” in Atlas Shrugged are 64 of the most important pages written in human history, but why should you take it on my authority?

I am wondering if it is worth my time to encourage you to read one book, no one can read the book for you, and no Objectivist wants to waste their time on someone who doesn't want to invest their own time on Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand said it so eloquently, and thoroughly, and she already spent her time saying it, it seems redundant to spend our time saying it.

The six books I have read of hers over and over again have expanded my consciousness. I am so much more powerful and alive, it is tragic to me to remember the time before I had them. No one can give that to you, it is something you have to earn.

She blindly puts herself at the mercy of an impersonal system that is failing. Her vote isn't going to guarantee anything if there is no money to vote toward herself.