Virtue of being self-absorbed?
- Thread starter AppLeo
- Start date
AtomsInPlace
Well-known member
The individual is important.
Let's take a macro/micro view on this.
Let's use the human body as an example of the micro.
Cell's are very important, individual "entities". They are the "league" that work together to make our physical bodies (macro=society) function.
Now if some cells decide that they don't want to work in harmony with the other cells, or perform their "divine" duty, the result is cancer.
Individual cells going willy nilly doing their own thing with no care of the consequences to the whole. (this by the way is being used against us by underminding our belief in unique divine function)
On the other hand, if we have each cell performing it's "divine" function, then the body remains healthy and harmonious.
Each cell has it's specific function, as does each organ in our body. Our cells and organs thrive when they are permitted to perform their specific function without some "outside" force telling them "well it may be that you're a heart cell, but we have decided that you need to function as a kidney cell".
So the heart cell begins to misfunction, because to be a kidney cell is not it's primary function, so instinct drives it to try and find it's original function. Alas in the process of trying to find it's true function , it causes chaos in the body, which will then manifest as "dis-ease"
This is how we work as humans. We each have our own function, cause and purpose, we all sense this deep down. But when we are robotically stuffed in a box and told that we NEED to do/be this or that for "The greater good" then we malfunction. Because in reality, when we are allowed and supported to live out our purpose and be that which we incarnated to be, then we contribute to "health" and "wholeness" instead of causing cancer.
Let's take a macro/micro view on this.
Let's use the human body as an example of the micro.
Cell's are very important, individual "entities". They are the "league" that work together to make our physical bodies (macro=society) function.
Now if some cells decide that they don't want to work in harmony with the other cells, or perform their "divine" duty, the result is cancer.
Individual cells going willy nilly doing their own thing with no care of the consequences to the whole. (this by the way is being used against us by underminding our belief in unique divine function)
On the other hand, if we have each cell performing it's "divine" function, then the body remains healthy and harmonious.
Each cell has it's specific function, as does each organ in our body. Our cells and organs thrive when they are permitted to perform their specific function without some "outside" force telling them "well it may be that you're a heart cell, but we have decided that you need to function as a kidney cell".
So the heart cell begins to misfunction, because to be a kidney cell is not it's primary function, so instinct drives it to try and find it's original function. Alas in the process of trying to find it's true function , it causes chaos in the body, which will then manifest as "dis-ease"
This is how we work as humans. We each have our own function, cause and purpose, we all sense this deep down. But when we are robotically stuffed in a box and told that we NEED to do/be this or that for "The greater good" then we malfunction. Because in reality, when we are allowed and supported to live out our purpose and be that which we incarnated to be, then we contribute to "health" and "wholeness" instead of causing cancer.
Last edited:
Cap
Well-known member
Siriusly?
What questions? Nonsense about toilet sharing and incoherent rambling about how no one deserves to be old and ugly? (part containing standard anti collectivist propaganda is OK).
That article addresses normal and sensible part of your post.
AtomsInPlace
Well-known member
AppLeo
Well-known member
Rand had her Sun in the 7th house. She cared deeply about the people that were close to her. But she does not believe in caring for those who do not deserve it or demand your care for whatever reason.
It is all in our selfish interest to care for our child. There would be no sense in having a child and then leaving it on the street; and the people that actually would do that are at a minority.
You come first before anyone else. No one else comes first before you. And that is something that Ayn Rand is driving home as hard as possible, yet people are ignorant enough to blow her off as some psychopath.
I'm absolutely serious.
Answer my questions with a strong counter argument in your own words. Have a real discussion with me; don't post silly memes or some website that vomits your views. I'm not going to waste my time.
If you believe that everyone should be equally economically, I don't understand how that logic wouldn't apply to other factors regarding age and attractiveness.
No. That is a highly biased and completely false explaination of capitalism.
"Capitalism, by its nature, entails a constant process of motion, growth, and progress. It creates the optimum social conditions for man to respond to the challenges of nature in such a way as best to further his life. It operates to the benefit of all those who choose to be active in the productive process, whatever their level of ability. But it is not geared to the demands of stagnation. Neither is reality" (Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness).
"When one considers the spectacular success, the unprecedented prosperity, that capitalism has achieved in practice (even with hampering controls)– and when one considers the dismal failure of every variety of collectivism–it should be clear that the enemies of capitalism are not motivated, at root, by economic considerations. They are motivated by metaphysical considerations–by a rebellion against the human mode of survival, a rebellion against the fact that life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action–and by the dream that, if only they can harness the men who do not resent the nature of life, they will make existence tolerable for those who do resent it" (Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness).
Last edited:
AppLeo
Well-known member
"The advocacy of individualism as such not new; what is new is the Objectivist validation of the theory of individualism and the definition of a consistent way to practice it. Too often, the ethical-polticidal meaning of individualism is held to be: doing whatever one wishes, regardless of the rights of others. Writers such as Nietzsche and Max Stirner are sometimes quoted in support of this interpretation. Altruists and collectivists have an obvious vested interest in persuading men that such is the main of individualism, that the man who refuses to be sacrificed intends to sacrifice others" (Nathaniel Branden, The Virtue of Selfishness).
"The contradiction in, and refutation of, such an interpretation of individualism is this: since the only rational base of individualism as an ethical principle is the requirements of man's survival qua man, and one man cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of another. If he denies inviolate rights to other men, he cannot claim such rights for himself; he has rejected the base of rights. No one can claim the moral right to a contradiction" (Nathaniel Branden, The Virtue of Selfishness).
"Individualism does not consist merely of rejecting the belief that man should live for the collective. A man who seeks escape from responsibility of supporting his life by his own thought and effort, and wishes to survive by conquering, ruling, and exploiting others, is no an individualist. An individualist is a man who lives for his own sake and by his own mind; he neither sacrifices himself to others nor sacrifices other to himself; he deals with men as a trader–not as a looter; as a Producer–not as an Attila" (Nathaniel Branden, The Virtue of Selfishness).
Oddity
Well-known member
I was posing it to you.
david starling
Well-known member
Individualists are self-defined, and don't need others to tell them what it means to BE an Individualist, or how an Individualist should think and act. Three types of personal orientation: Inner-directed, Other-directed, and Tradition-directed. Individualists are Inner-directed.
Oddity
Well-known member
A giant leap forward for equality *shakes head*
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-online-vide
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-online-vide
AppLeo
Well-known member
Unbelievable....
AppLeo
Well-known member
I don't think I drove this point home enough..
There is no such thing as abundance.
For example, geographically, there is only one Earth and a limited amount of places to live.
How much space does each person get and who gets to live where in the world? Everyone is going to want to live in the most expensive and beautiful places to live. You cannot give up the right for people to own things, such as land.
AppLeo
Well-known member
Cap
Well-known member
Leo,
this discussion is pointless. I can understand that you are incapable of envisioning different kind of world than it is today and I don't blame you, not many people can. But at least, you should be able to recognize that the world, as it is today, is on the brink of collapse. Problems that we're facing today in the world are overwhelming, these are hard facts and quotes from your favorite book won't make them go away.
Yes, you are right, at this moment we are not fully yet there technologically, but in 5-10 years we will be there and we won't be ready if we don't start with preparations now. There are dozens of proposals out there, most of them won't work without cooperation of the whole world.
I don't want to waste my time arguing with Rand's philosophy. It is not very smart thing to say that all public schools and hospitals and roads and fire departments etc. are evil and lead to altruism, dictator, destruction and death. I take it that you don't live in a mansion right now and there is 99,99% chance that you never will, and yet, every proposed system in which you don't get to live in a mansion will not be to your liking because that leads to altruism, dictator, destruction and death.
If you are right and humanity is not capable of producing abundance, then enjoy your life to the fullest while you can, because the road we are currently on will end in total chaos and destruction.
Last edited:
AppLeo
Well-known member
I don't see what is so pointless. We are discussing the fate of the world here.
That's because most people are realistic and down-to-earth. They do not indulge in idealistic fantasies.
I get the feeling that you think I am happy with the world as it is now... I'm not!! And the facts and quotes that I am preaching is what will save us. And you know what, quotes about your abundant world won't make the the problems in our world go away either!! We can sit around and ponder these thoughts, but we clearly have to do something about it.
Free market capitalism will grow the world way better than what you propose. If people traded to suit each others needs the world can only grow. The only reason why everything is so bad is because of the freaking governments. They limit and regulate what human life can and can't do.
We give the government control over the most important services of our lives. The government. The very people who rely ON GROUPS of people to stay in power. By lying and manipulating people who do not think critically. Giving out false promises that they will somehow fix this and they will fix that... You know who fixes all the problems in the world. The people. You know who's responsible for what actually happens in our lives. The people. The government shouldn't have ever taken responsibility for changing the delegating our world.
Altruism is the very thing that allows evil people to exist. A narcissist cannot suckk the life out of someone's soul if that person pursued their selfish interest. A psychopath cannot manipulate and control people when people are thinking rationally about themselves and what is good for them. But a psychopath, one that demands power, can easily find a position in the government by promising all kinds of things. Essentially, the government is this kind of unlimited power that demands that the people serve it. If the government became free enterprise; in other words, if we paid the government to perform services such as health care, the army, mail, education...it puts the government as the servant automatically. We've spent billions of dollars in education and guess what, education has not gotten better. You know what would make education better? An education that you pay for. Education that is worth its time. If the education fails the business doesn't make money. If education is good, the business makes money. The government doesn't care about our education. How can one person know what is good for everyone in education? Everyone hates standardized tests. Everyone hates getting up to go to school, so they waste their time and don't do their best. The teachers hate their jobs and make hardly any money. Only a multiple range of businesses can suit the public of what it needs for an education. Imagine how much more money teachers would make if they taught privately. Suddenly, the quality of the teacher matters. We give our health care, one of the most important things, to the government's control. Unbelievable. Imagine if the entire world was privately owned. All of the garbage quality services would go out of business. Who says you can't have public roads? Who says you need roads anyway? Imagine the businesses that would try to provide transportation without the use of roads, or create better roads that are safer to drive on. Or try to invent vehicles that float, or drive under water. Or create a city or life that only needed you to walk to your work. Without the government's control and only the government protecting citizen's right, our choices are limitless.
Altruism and sharing to everyone, indiscriminately, is the reason why the world is completely messed up. If everyone pursued their selfish interest, no one would do anything to decrease their quality of or anyone else's quality of life. People would only trade with others to increase their life's quality and to increase the other person's life quality.
Absolutely. However, what's only fair is that the smartest and most productive of people should be able to live in mansions if they choose. And if they don't, they can give their money away. Separation of state and economics allows a peaceful coexistence of economic beliefs. Those who don't believe in capitalism can pool their money together and give it away to the less fortunate. But they cannot expect those who do believe in capitalism to do the same. Just as a Christian cannot impose or expect a Muslim to adopt their religion and vice versa.
How exactly do you think it will end? What's gonna go down first and why?
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
If this were a Meritocracy, many who are rich would be poor, and visa versa.
AppLeo
Well-known member
If what were a meritocracy?
What even is that..
meritocracy |ˌmerəˈtäkrəsē|
noun (pl. meritocracies)
government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability.
• a society governed by meritocracy.
• a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people.
-- So what's your point David? Like can you give an example of how this relates to the United States?
david starling
Well-known member
The U.S. is a Greediocracy.