If I remember correctly, I wrote this just before I started reading Atlas Shrugged. I think Ayn Rand herself actually wrote something similar. I was reading Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy, and he was explaining on one of the reason's for the Biblical commands against adultery. Basically, he was saying that love - every kind of love - is a good thing. However, as finite human beings, we should concentrate our love (particularly our physical love) on only one person, because we are finite. So, now, if I were going to coin my own virtue (as Ayn Rand did), I would borrow Willard's thinking and define something like a "Virtue of Proximity." Basically, the further removed you are from a situation, the less you will know about it, and therefore the less you should concern yourself with it. If you go sticking your nose into things you aren't really familiar with, you're likely to hurt rather than help. On second thought, you could just call it the "Virtue of Minding Your Own Business."
Selfishness
First of all, let us say that selfishness is: to be self-centered, that is to put yourself and your own desires first. In other words, to do things because they bring benefit to you. For instance, giving money to the poor might bring a nice feeling to the benefactor. In fact, most acts that we would call "selfless" have some kind of emotional reward. If the person being selfless truly intended to gain NOTHING from their actions, then they would be doing things without reasons, in other words they would be acting irrationally. Still, selfishness has some rather negative connotations, even if it seems (IMHO) to be a semantically correct title. The kind of selfishness I have described is rather broad, and the following divisions seem the most natural to me:
Type I selfishness: Positive, philanthropic, cooperative, mutual, unselfish
Example: Giving money to the poor in order that *you* may store up treasure in heaven.
Type II selfishness: Neutral, isolated
Example: Choosing to eat your favorite meal.
Type III selfishness: Negative, harmful, selfish
Example: Stealing to gain wealth.
Example: Giving money to the poor in order that *you* may store up treasure in heaven.
Type II selfishness: Neutral, isolated
Example: Choosing to eat your favorite meal.
Type III selfishness: Negative, harmful, selfish
Example: Stealing to gain wealth.
Positive selfishness stems from the idea that if something benefits one person, it is likely to benefit others. This benefit to others might or might not be intentional. Negative selfishness comes when what benefits one person hurts others. Neutral selfishness simply has no consequences for anyone other than the perpetrator. I definitely believe in positive selfishness, but I'm not so sure the other two really exist.
First of all, I'm not sure neutral selfishness exists because I'm not sure it is possible to do anything without it affecting other people. Therefore, I would have to say that for purposes of discussion, neutral selfishness is that in which the person is ignorant of the effects on others. It is this definition which tends to make me want to say that ignorance is bliss. So it remains to be decided if neutral selfishness stemming from intentional ignorance is really neutral. However, the opportunity cost of shedding this ignorance has no limit. Therefore can a person really be blamed for intentional ignorance, and if so how much can they be blamed?
Second is the reason I'm not sure that negative selfishness exists. I believe in absolute right and wrong. These are not relative to the individual. Therefore, how can a single (willful) event be good for one person and bad for another? I am stressing here that cost and benefit usually reach deeper than they appear. If one person does something to hurt another, then they also unintentionally hurt themselves. For instance, if you murder someone you might go to hell, and you will probably be punished on earth, by guilt if nothing else. Or, if people are really bringing benefit, to themselves, then they must be bringing benefit to others even if the others don't see it as a benefit. For instance: a parent that is disciplining a child. For the sake of discussion I will let negative selfishness be that which brings obvious hurt to others, while seeming to benefit the perpetrator.
Now, all of this calls for a very large dose of discretion. I administer that dosage by saying that all people have intrinsically equal susceptibility to ignorance of the true consequences of any given action. That is not to say that a person cannot work to improve their predictive odds in making judgment calls. The process of making good choices is improved by the process of making good choices. However, this still skirts the questioning of what makes the initial choice 'good,' or positively selfish... but don't look at me, I never said I had all the answers.
Anyway, since people can't always be sure about whether or not their actions are hurting others or not, and since they can't intentionally do things that bring them NO benefit unless they are crazy, it seems that the best thing to do is to pursue selfishness - ahem - KEEPING IN MIND that if it comes to their attention that they are hurting someone else, they should stop whatever it is that they are doing. Now, it seems to me that a person would usually be more aware of the true consequences of their action on themselves than on anyone else. Having said that, the most honest thing for a person to do is to always express their desires as a function of selfishness. Anyone who claims to be doing anything else is probably a liar. Ergo, if it seems at times that I am always thinking of myself first, I am. However, AFTER the first expression of an idea, I will try to always give room for a consideration of responses. That's not to say that I'm terribly good at it.
Original MySpace comment (by me)
ReplyDeleteInteresting corollary:
http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html
Partly, this is saying that "selfishness" is good because of how the "trick down effect" makes the poor in a rich country better off than the poor in a poor country. But, it also explains the unintended backlash that regulation tends to have against the working poor.
As a side, I know that the phrase "trickle down effect" or "trickle down theory" was frowned upon by the Obama Campaign (though I never actually heard it reasoned against), and therefore using the cliche' might put me on shaky ground at this particular point in history. However, I just finished reading Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad. In that book, he uses the phrase "trickle down effect" in a very different sense (but I think equally true). He says that historically, American taxation was almost non-existant, and was initially a "Robin Hood" operation against the rich. However, the rich get rich by being creative. They also stay rich by being creative. Most truly rich people own corporations, in the legal sense (not necessarily in the popular sense). Corporations allow a ton of tax breaks. Anybody can own a corportation, it's just a matter of filing the right paperwork - but usually only the "rich minded" are smart/motivated enough to take this action and actually do it. So the truly rich actually pay very little taxes. Meanwhile, taxes are now mostly paid by the poor and middle class. That's what Kiyosaki means by the "trickle down effect." He says that the poor and middle class are mistaken if they think they can become rich just by taking money from the rich. They don't understand what wealth is, how it's made, or how it's kept - so if they simply grasp for a bit of money, the rich will outsmart them. Always. The only solution, as Kiyosaki says, is to become "financially literate," and become one of the rich. Until more of the population can do that, we will keep going down the road we are going down where the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, Kiyosaki says this is a very dangerous sitatuation that has caused the collapse of civilizations in the past, and may well do so again. Which is why he wants to educate people about financial literacy, because the public education system is woefully unequipped to do so.
390 days ago
Related: Listen to Brian Christian by EdgeFoundationInc #np on #SoundCloud
ReplyDeletehttps://soundcloud.com/edgefoundationinc/brian-christian
Distant echos of old thought patterns, revised with new tools and new information...
ReplyDeleteRepairing Self-Abandonment: People Pleasing, Anxious Attachment, and Developing Self-Worth
Me: Write an essay about the life and writings of Ayn Rand, and how they relate to feminism and "selfishness", and the self-abandonment concepts discussed in this video.
Copilot:
Certainly! Let's explore the life and writings of Ayn Rand, her philosophical ideas, and their connections to feminism, selfishness, and self-abandonment.
## Ayn Rand: A Visionary Individualist
Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a Russian-American writer, philosopher, and novelist whose ideas continue to provoke debate and inspire both admiration and criticism. Her life experiences significantly shaped her worldview, and her works introduced a unique philosophy known as Objectivism.
### Early Years in Russia
1. **Russian Revolution and Soviet Communism**:
- Born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, Rand witnessed the tumultuous events of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet communism.
- These experiences fueled her skepticism toward collectivist ideologies and shaped her commitment to individualism.
2. **Emigration to the United States**:
- In 1926, Rand emigrated to the United States. She worked as a screenwriter and began writing novels that would later introduce her philosophy to the world.
### Key Concepts in Ayn Rand's Philosophy
1. **Rational Self-Interest**:
- Rand extolled the "virtue of selfishness," emphasizing that rational self-interest is not true selfishness but a moral imperative.
- According to her, pursuing one's own happiness and well-being is essential, and self-sacrifice is not a virtue⁴.
2. **Individualism and Independence**:
- Rand championed individualism, valuing personal achievement, creativity, and independence.
- Her protagonists, such as Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead," embody this principle by refusing to compromise their integrity for societal approval.
3. **Capitalism and Objectivism**:
- Rand defended laissez-faire capitalism as the only system compatible with individual rights.
- She believed that voluntary trade, private property, and free markets lead to prosperity and human flourishing.
### Ayn Rand and Feminism
Delete1. **Unlikely Alliance**:
- Rand's ideas often clashed with feminist perspectives. Her celebration of individualism and rational self-interest contrasted with traditional notions of selflessness and service to others.
- Feminists have had a conflicted relationship with Rand's ideas, appreciating her strong female characters while grappling with her rejection of collectivism¹.
2. **Gender Stereotypes in Rand's Fiction**:
- Rand's heroines defy gender stereotypes. They are clear-thinking, passionate individuals of action, integrity, and guiltless sexuality.
- Her works challenge the idea that women should prioritize self-sacrifice and service to others above their own interests.
3. **Selfishness and Sexuality**:
- Rand provocatively stated that "sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts," emphasizing the importance of self-exaltation and confidence in desire⁵.
- Her views on sexuality align with her broader philosophy of rational self-interest.
### Self-Abandonment and Rand's Individualism
1. **Self-Abandonment**:
- The video on self-abandonment discusses neglecting personal needs for the sake of others, often resulting from seeking security and love.
- Rand's philosophy encourages individuals to prioritize their own well-being and happiness, rejecting self-abandonment.
2. **Individual Development**:
- Rand's emphasis on individual development aligns with overcoming self-abandonment. She believed that self-actualization and pursuing one's values were essential.
- In contrast to collectivism, which may stifle self-actualization, Rand's heroes embrace their uniqueness and pursue their goals¹.
In summary, Ayn Rand's life and writings continue to resonate. Her celebration of individualism, rationality, and self-interest intersects with feminist discussions on self-sacrifice, gender roles, and autonomy. Whether admired or criticized, Rand's legacy remains influential in philosophical and literary circles².
Back when I read Atlas Shrugged, I avoided discussing it with my parents. They were very religious and I did not anticipate that the discussion would go well. My younger siblings, however, also read the book, and for whatever reason never learned the cautious avoidance inclinations that I did. They brought it up. Somehow I got pulled into the discussions. I tried once to discuss Ayn Rand's concept of selfishness with my mother. She so enraged by the very word, it was impossible to have an intellectual discussion about it.
DeleteAnyway, many years later, neither me nor my younger siblings have much of a relationship with our mother. Our household was certainly one where the word "feminist" was uttered almost as a dirty word. I sometimes wonder if maybe... My mom was raised in such a patriarchal atmosphere that self-abandonment became her modus operandi, and that is why she had such a strong reaction to the idea that "selfishness" could be good. Perhaps she had already sacrificed so much, and made her peace with it, that she couldn't bear to reconsider whether that was right or ok?
I can't find it now but I remember reading once that Ayn Rand said her mother once told her that she (the mother) did not actually love her children, but cared for them only because it was her duty. Ayn Rand did not have a good relationship with her mother.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
DeleteBut if you think it is good and right to torture yourself, what will you be willing to inflict on others?
As the saying goes "Hurt people hurt people.""