slacker00

Ok, I think I've got it figured out. I'm involved in an argument between Ayn Rand and my dictionary! I think Ayn Rand branded her own definitions of Altruism & Selfishness, not to mention the word Objectivism. That's what was confusing me. I've been on a bit of a dictionary reading kick recently and looking up every word to get the exact definition, which I think can add value to my understanding. In this case it completely derailed me. I'm pretty sure this is what's going on here. Let's see if I can clear things up. So, she basically clipped off the part that I put in bold above. So, now I agree with Ayn Rand. The quote is from VOS intro, which I read a while back, but that little part of the definition threw me for a loop when I got the dictionary out. Regarding altruism, I still can't find where Rand nails down an exact definition. But she does seem to always frame it in the context of being coerced. But I did find this quote about charity, which I think is more accurate to my dictionary definition of altruism above. I agree with this also. So, to answer my own question that started this thread. I think maybe Rand was indifferent whether her readers gained legitimate benefit from her work. I do think that she thought her philosophy was good and could help people, but that was really out of her hands. She was just a writer and write what she knew, which was her ideas and her stories. I think I'm satisfied with that conclusion. This would fit the dictionary definition of altruism, but not Rand's version of being compelled to write to inspire and explain her philosophy. What a thought!

I can't set the dictionary definitions aside. There must be some common understanding of basic definitions. Otherwise what's the point of a discussion if the words have no meaning? As far as hurting, using, deceiving others, I can only speak for myself. Have I done it? Yes. Do I regret it? Yes. Was it rational? It depends on the objective. In my case of deception, I had a job in sales and followed the sales script provided to me, which I knew was a bunch of baloney. Whoever listened to me just heard a line of baloney. But I had to pay the rent and that's the job that paid. I didn't last long. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I live in the real world and it isn't always so clear cut what one should or shouldn't do. Even further, there aren't always a ton of options depending on the situation and the individual. My objective was to pay rent. I was deceptive, but I paid the rent. My other option might have been to default on my rent, which would have been a breach of contract with my landlord, is that rational? Is it rational to be homeless when I had other options which, albeit, weren't all that appealing?

Thanks. Understanding is certainly a preferred ideal over any compulsion towards acceptance. Unfortunately, reality doesn't always mesh perfectly with ideology. Hopefully, at least amongst Objectivists, understanding will be a universal priority objective above any mandate towards acceptance of misunderstanding. As for Rand's villains, I've had a very tough time relating to them. They seem so contrived & goofy that I often look up from the book and ask myself out loud, "Who acts like this?!". I appreciate your honesty & sincerity in confessing to exhibiting the behavior of some of Rand's villains. I finally have an answer to my question! Hey Ryan. Those guys really missed you after you left. There were quite a few big threads threads talking about your leaving. I think it was for the best all around, but quite a scene for at least a few days there. I think everything has finally settled down now over there. That's cool. I'm glad to understand that people are willing to concede that Ayn Rand was a human rather than some kind of God or prophet or whatever. On a different forum, I tried to debate Rand's stance on abortion, not so much one way or the other but that she was inconsistent on where she stood. Ryan linked me to this board, through this thread, which is how I got started here. I didn't read all of it, but I think all of the viewpoints regarding Rand's quotes were probably exhausted. Maybe I'll go over it again and try to make a statement in that thread at some point. Rand seems very confusing to me regarding anything relating to sex, reproduction or family values. I know people keep telling me to read this or read that, but I've read pretty much all of it at one point or another, I still end up feeling empty. I'd prefer if people would directly link a quote to accurately address their point through Rand's words so I could address where it doesn't make sense. Although, I also need to provide direct Rand quotes regarding the parts I don't understand. Otherwise the discussion has no point of reference. Thanks. I've already being reading some old threads on here. It's nice to be able to see how some regular people react to Ayn Rand's ideas. I enjoy reading Rand's books and learning about her ideas, but at a point it's nice to get an alternative viewpoint and maybe get some answers to some questions that keep coming up in my mind as I read her works. Thanks for a great forum!

I chose other/combined. My family never went to church except a few isolated experiences with weddings, funerals, plus a summer bible school thing I did with a neighbor kid one summer. My reaction towards my experience with organized religion was mixed. I seem to recall enjoying the singing and interaction with others. But, I found the Sunday service & preaching to be spooky, with the stained glass windows and preacher speaking in what seemed to be a foreign language at the time. The spookiest part is when everyone would chant a prayer or kneel in unison, which was scary because everyone knew what was going on except me. I know it seems silly, but that spookiness of religion sticks to me to this day. Otherwise, I've developed a very abstract blank slate approach to God, if such a being really exists. I've tried to make my own personal peace with whatever kind of being that might exist. I've tested the waters by reading the bible, which has some interesting facets to it, but I can only take so much away from it. I also tried being an atheist for a while, but it's just as much nonsense to me as theism because atheism acknowledges that the question is relevant and that it has an answer. It's like answering the question, "what color is the number 2?". The Christians say it's white, Muslims say it's red, Buddhists say it's green, then the atheist comes along and declares that it's transparent. I come along and say, "2 is a number, not a color.". The concept of God is a tool used by humans to grapple with existential questions. Does God exist? As a tool, sure. Otherwise, it depends on how one defines God. Even then, proof can only apply to certain defined aspects of God. God as an entity, by definition, is fundamentally existentially unprovable one way or the other. By the same token, any description or definition which claims to be the final word on the subject has to be wrong. One thing for sure is the fact that there is quite a bit that is beyond human comprehension, which in a nutshell, I think is what God represents.

altruism 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others The U.S. military as a whole tends not to be altruistic, at least in theory. As a nation, by definition, we are not devoted to the welfare of other countries except in the sense of our own interests as a nation. The reason is simply because it's too expensive to do anything more than is critically necessary to achieve the primary objectives. In practice, it seems to get a little muddy. Our recent liberation of Iraq, as a slogan, smacks of altruistic overtones, but maybe it was a military necessity in the big scheme of world diplomacy, regardless. To the individual soldier, I suppose it can vary. Some soldiers might be in it purely as a career decision. Some soldiers might feel good about certain aspects of the job, one aspect of which might include protecting their home country. But if one thinks in terms of nationalism, then they are thinking about a greater good, which is altruism. I don't think that's the end of the world, as long as altruism doesn't become an obsession or compulsion. Any obsession or compulsion seems to be dangerous in the sense that one loses one's self to the obsession or compulsion. To expand on this concept, we might look at service careers in other professions. By definition, many jobs are altruistic by definition. Careers like nursing comes to mind, devoting care to a patient. Sure, the nurse gets a paycheck, but from my experience nursing is a very tough career if you're just doing it to pay the rent. It takes a special person to really connect on the type of a level that certain nurses need to do as part of their job description. I'd say any profession where there is intimate interaction on a personal level with other individuals is the same way. There are a lot of jobs which are tough, if not impossible, without having some kind of connection with coworkers, customers, employees & supervisors to varying degrees. I know there are lots of jobs that are not this way, banker, for example. Fiction writer? The point is that there are different types of jobs for different types of people. Some jobs are altruistic in nature, which extends beyond the pay check. Some jobs require little or no meaningful devoted interest or interaction with other people.

Thanks, Laure. I almost brought up the concept of compulsion in my thread starter, because I think that's the root of what Rand is really talking about. It isn't really about being selfish or unselfish, which I think are bastardized concepts. It really comes down to any type of authoritarian compulsion to do anything. Even socialism at it's core seems to want to force people to behave in ways which benefit their lives, but it's the compulsion of the system which is really the root of all evil. It's not even so bad to compel another person in some situations, say saving a person from drowning by grabbing them and dragging them to safety. It's just that compulsion can't become a "way of life" for a variety of reasons. I really wish Ayn Rand would have spoken in terms of compulsion rather than words like altruism. I think Ayn Rand's biggest misunderstanding was that altruism was a defining life philosophy for many people. Maybe at the time of her writings there were more altruists, but someone would have to explain to me who they were and why they were altruists in the Ayn Rand sense. The only examples that spring to my mind might be the so-called saints throughout the history of religion, which brings up another topic that Ayn Rand was simply an evangelical atheist hell bent on philosophically destroying theism. In any case, when Ayn Rand is debating against the altruist, I don't really understand who she is debating against. I see most people as a mixed bag of selfishness & altruism, with different behaviors differing in degree between selfishness & unselfishness. People who are too unselfish usually come across as being an idiot and people being too selfish come across as being conceited. selfish 1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> I'm familiar with how Ayn Rand uses this word. I'm just not sure how a life philosophy based on selfishness is any less self destructive than a life philosophy based on altruism. Both seem pathological to me. Complete disregard towards others seems just as bad as complete disregard towards any other element of reality. Reality should be regarded in all ways, parts of reality can't simply be disregarded because it's something inconvenient. Other people are a part of reality. Letters of Ayn Rand is one of the few Ayn Rand books I haven't yet read. I have come across some of her letters in books like, Philosophy: who needs it?. Reading her letters does bring out a different side of her than we see in her philosophy or fiction books. Like I said in my first post above, I think she meant the things that she said, that's why she's such a compelling writer. Right or wrong, you knew you were getting the straight shit from her. At least that's the best thing that I take away from reading her writings. To everyone else, thanks also for your replies. But I'm not really looking for an orthodox Objectivist answer, I already know what Ayn Rand has to say about altruism. I'm trying to dig a little deeper than that. Maybe this is the wrong forum to ask an Objectivist to take a long, hard look in the mirror and tell me what they really see. When I look in the mirror, I certainly don't see Ayn Rand.

I know Ayn Rand stated that she was vehemently against altruism. But I also wonder why she worked so hard to advance her philosophy of Objectivism. I know it was her job as a writer to write. She started with her fiction, which evolved into explaining her philosophy of Objectivism. When I read her writings I feel a compassion in her motives for voicing her opinion about her brand of ultimate truth in her philosophy. Was she just a pitchman hawking snake oil? Was she a prima dona only trying to pacify her own selfish ego? I like to think that she genuinely thought there was some truth to what she was talking about, not just a slick sales pitch to gratify herself. But that would make her an altruist. altruism 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 I do think that Rand was devoting herself to the welfare of her readers, many of us which would never read her works until long after she was dead. The fact that I bought all of her books long after her death testify to the fact that she gained no financial or egotistical benefit from me. She even talked often about her legacy in Objectivism almost as if it was bigger than she was. My point is that I don't think it's the end of the world to care about people, even to the point of altruism. I think this can be what family is all about, especially when one chooses a mate and eventually has children. In family, one must have devotion to the welfare of the ones one cares about. I guess we can split hairs about how ones children might benefit a parent or argue about what is selfish and what isn't and I imagine that is where the discussion begins for Rand. But I claim that most people simply don't do all of this calculation when they fall in love and have kids. Even further, one can't really choose their children, which are individuals with their own unique personalities which may or may not be a pure benefit to the adult. I concede that it's not an easy discussion, but one that needs to be made. Ayn Rand seems to ignore things like love & caring for people except in some strange context of selfishness & greed which doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you guys can help me try to figure out this seeming paradox about Objectivism.

Hi all, I'm new here. I'm not new to Objectivism. I was introduced to Ayn Rand's books back in college, which for me was almost 15 years ago. I liked her books, to a point. I like her philosophy, to a point. I don't know what it is about me, but I can't accept 100% of what she says about everything, like some others seem to be able to do. In any case, that's why I'm here, to try to understand the finer points about Objectivism and maybe to discuss things a little bit. At first I think I'll mostly lurk, but at some point, hopefully, I'll get into the discussion a little bit. I've pretty much read all of the Ayn Rand books, but it's been a while now. Lately, I mostly just browse some Objectivist articles, search for Ayn Rand quotes, etc. I still find her ideas intriguing, but for whatever reason I never really have the time to really sit down and read Atlas Shrugged again, even though I'd really like to give it another go around. I mostly hunt & peck for Objectivist concepts when something comes up in the news or whatever and I think to myself, I wonder what Ayn Rand would have to say about all of this. Anyway, that's me in a nutshell. -slacker00