2 of 2
2
Considering “self-interest” versus “enlightened self-interest”
Posted: 26 July 2017 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24
CuthbertJ - 26 July 2017 10:07 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 21 July 2017 12:11 PM
CuthbertJ - 21 July 2017 11:25 AM

Self interest is what everyone thinks Ayn Rand was about. Enlightened, or Rational, Self Interest is what she was actually about. I do think though that’s she’s turning over in her grave as we see all the fake Rand followers.

nonsense

Good answer bub. How about a real response?

Why don’t you start with a few quotes that support your novel supposition.

I’m busy with other more timely windmills http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/07/failed-communication-antarctic.html
Not to mention the garden work I’m supposed to get to.

Here’s an easy, though quite authoritative, place to start.  Listen to it and see if there are any applicable quotes and share the time-mark.

Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand (1959) (full interview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKd0ToQD00o

Or link to whatever you choose.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 July 2017 11:11 AM
CuthbertJ - 26 July 2017 10:07 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 21 July 2017 12:11 PM
CuthbertJ - 21 July 2017 11:25 AM

Self interest is what everyone thinks Ayn Rand was about. Enlightened, or Rational, Self Interest is what she was actually about. I do think though that’s she’s turning over in her grave as we see all the fake Rand followers.

nonsense

Good answer bub. How about a real response?

Why don’t you start with a few quotes that support your novel supposition.

I’m busy with other more timely windmills http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/07/failed-communication-antarctic.html
Not to mention the garden work I’m supposed to get to.

Here’s an easy, though quite authoritative, place to start.  Listen to it and see if there are any applicable quotes and share the time-mark.

Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand (1959) (full interview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKd0ToQD00o

Or link to whatever you choose.

No need for timemarks. Pretty much the whole thing is a big “what I said”. It’s a tough concept to understand, and Mike Wallace kind of misses the mark a few times. The conservatives nowadays, who I say she’s turning in her grave about, link social compulsion with political and economic issues, which is why I say she’d disapprove.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 12:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24
CuthbertJ - 09 August 2017 10:22 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 July 2017 11:11 AM
CuthbertJ - 26 July 2017 10:07 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 21 July 2017 12:11 PM
CuthbertJ - 21 July 2017 11:25 AM

Self interest is what everyone thinks Ayn Rand was about.
Enlightened, or Rational, Self Interest is what she was actually about. I do think though that’s she’s turning over in her grave as we see all the fake Rand followers.

nonsense

Good answer bub. How about a real response?

Why don’t you start with a few quotes that support your novel supposition.

I’m busy with other more timely windmills http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/07/failed-communication-antarctic.html
Not to mention the garden work I’m supposed to get to.

Here’s an easy, though quite authoritative, place to start.  Listen to it and see if there are any applicable quotes and share the time-mark.

Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand (1959) (full interview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKd0ToQD00o

Or link to whatever you choose.

No need for timemarks. Pretty much the whole thing is a big “what I said”. It’s a tough concept to understand, and Mike Wallace kind of misses the mark a few times. The conservatives nowadays, who I say she’s turning in her grave about, link social compulsion with political and economic issues, which is why I say she’d disapprove.

Really???

Right out the gate she lays it out and it’s schizophrenic thinking - Self-interest as the ultimate goal in life. 
Follow one’s own self-interested “reason” and believe it to be the ultimate arbiter of truth -
it’s no wonder libertarians and rightwing sheople have so royally fuked society and the future these past decades.
It’s an absolutely suicidal approach to the reality of living in a human society that is getting ever more crowded,
and a planet that is getting ever smaller.

Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand (1959) (full interview)
Published on Nov 17, 2012 on YouTube by Tiffany Ondracek

starts at 0:50

1:25 Mike’s introduction - Randism

Philosophy based on “Objective Reality”

2:00 Ayn Rands’ words:
Reality exists as an objective absolute.
That man’s mind, reason is his means of perceiving it.
Man needs a rational morality.

A morality not based on faith,  but on reason.
Improved by means of logic, which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.

Her morality:

Man’s life as a standard of ___?__ and since man’s mind is his basic means of survival,
I hope that if man wants to live on Earth and to live as a human being he has to hold reason as an absolute.

3:30 Reason as his only guide to action, that he must live by the independent judgement of his own mind. 
That his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, and that he must not force other people, nor accept their right to force him. 
That each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own rational self-interest.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 12:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

CuthbertJ, would you please define “enlightened self-interest”?

Oh and where does Rands’ “rationality” come in?
In particular how is this supposed to work: “and that he must not force other people, nor accept their right to force him.”
You do appreciate we live in a society and must constantly interact with each other in a civil manner.
How is that done without accepting some hierarchy and making adjustments or even submitting to the greater good here and there, now and then.

It’s like obeying traffic laws, they demand an acceptance and submission to authority. 
What about those proud individuals who’s self-rationalized need for exercising his freedom and refusing to abide by those rules and that authority - they are a menace to all other citizens,  and justly treated as such.

[ Edited: 10 August 2017 12:54 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25

Let’s put it this way. Blind or unenlightened self-interest is where you think it’s okay to climb over anyone you want to get what you want. Ends Justify the Means. Enlightened self-interest is where you realize there are others who have a right to their own interests as well. You can’t just climb over them. You can negotiate freely so that both of you arrive at a solution that’s amenable to both of you. The difficult part of this is that the world isn’t so clean cut. As far as your traffic example is concerned, you’re twisting words. By living in a certain community you agree to abide by it’s rules. If you don’t like the rules, you negotiate their change, for example by voting. One problem with understanding her philosophy is that people, even smart ones like you, hear “selfishness” and proceed to fly off the handle with all kinds of goofy exagerations. I think Ayn Rand would have been better off if she called it the Non-religious Golden Rule.  The idea behind this is compulsion. The thing she’s most against. So compulsion of the individual to act a certain way, whether by the government, organized religion, another person, etc.

[ Edited: 10 August 2017 10:25 AM by CuthbertJ ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
CuthbertJ - 10 August 2017 10:23 AM

I think Ayn Rand would have been better off if she called it the Non-religious Golden Rule. 

But she didn’t call it that. Probably because her ideas didn’t fit any known version of that rule. Worse, people would have recognized that term and tried to map her words onto it. They wouldn’t fit. She needed to hide her bad ideas in her own made up language. One of the worst violations she made of discussing philosophy was she didn’t refer to other philosophers. She didn’t show what she was building on or compare and contrast herself to existing philosophies. Except some vague critique of socialism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24
CuthbertJ - 10 August 2017 10:23 AM

One problem with understanding her philosophy is that people, even smart ones like you, hear “selfishness” and proceed to fly off the handle with all kinds of goofy exaggerations. .

Jesus f’n christ look at the global political trajectory since 2000s, if you want to ignore the stuff that came before.

Now we are getting ready to fire nuclear weapons at each other and most the country is just blindly going along with the ride.
And given how America seems incapable of deescalating these pissing matches, it’s amazingly frightening.
First we to go with the Shock’Awe and it’s done nothing but fuk us.
Now forces intend to privative our war in Afghanistan, while our idiot Russian obligate president is hoping divert attention by
screaming “Fire and Fury” and you know the trump is shallow enough to do it, and the sheople will go along.

It’s monstrous.

Cuthbert can you do a more specific job of Randian apologetics’s. 
For instance her novels, er fairytales, have been taken as a guide for justifying Profits Uber Alles and all the profound harms that’s inflicted on our society since the Reagan years.

Now we are literally driving our biosphere and human society into the ground, but we want nothing more than attacking all perceived enemies.  Crazy.

Oh, but there’s no crisis, as they say crisis what crisis.  Stick around it’ll reach you before you know it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

George Orwell: A Life in Pictures Full Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6txpumkY5I&t

Excellent biography of the man.  His comments on the domesticated English being emasculated and incapable standing up to deception and corruption of demagogues .

It’s quite insightful.

Has a lot to say about today’s situation here in America.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 August 2017 04:43 PM
CuthbertJ - 10 August 2017 10:23 AM

One problem with understanding her philosophy is that people, even smart ones like you, hear “selfishness” and proceed to fly off the handle with all kinds of goofy exaggerations. .

Jesus f’n christ look at the global political trajectory since 2000s, if you want to ignore the stuff that came before.

Now we are getting ready to fire nuclear weapons at each other and most the country is just blindly going along with the ride.
And given how America seems incapable of deescalating these pissing matches, it’s amazingly frightening.
First we to go with the Shock’Awe and it’s done nothing but fuk us.
Now forces intend to privative our war in Afghanistan, while our idiot Russian obligate president is hoping divert attention by
screaming “Fire and Fury” and you know the trump is shallow enough to do it, and the sheople will go along.

It’s monstrous.

Cuthbert can you do a more specific job of Randian apologetics’s. 
For instance her novels, er fairytales, have been taken as a guide for justifying Profits Uber Alles and all the profound harms that’s inflicted on our society since the Reagan years.

Now we are literally driving our biosphere and human society into the ground, but we want nothing more than attacking all perceived enemies.  Crazy.

Oh, but there’s no crisis, as they say crisis what crisis.  Stick around it’ll reach you before you know it.

I would say her ideas have been misused and misunderstood by those who have caused these things. Just like many of Jesus’ ideas have been misunderstood by Christians throughout the ages to cause harm. (And no I’m not comparing the two, just giving an example.)

Let me add though that I’m just trying to help you understand her ideas. I don’t necessarily agree with them. Just like if you explained Nazism to me I shouldn’t think you’re a Nazi.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
CuthbertJ - 11 August 2017 09:44 AM

I would say her ideas have been misused and misunderstood by those who have caused these things. Just like many of Jesus’ ideas have been misunderstood by Christians throughout the ages to cause harm. (And no I’m not comparing the two, just giving an example.)

Let me add though that I’m just trying to help you understand her ideas. I don’t necessarily agree with them. Just like if you explained Nazism to me I shouldn’t think you’re a Nazi.

That they are easily abused is the point. Just like with Jesus. It’s not Matthew 25 that is the problem, well, except the eternal fire part, but not the feed the hungry part, the problem is the 4th century armies that burned anyone who didn’t preach their particular version of the creed. Rand opens herself up to this because of what I said before, she didn’t compare herself to others or allow for discussion of what was weak in her thesis. She just wrote some books, and if you read only those books, they sound like there might be something there. With Jesus, at least you can pretend your following him for the good of all mankind, with Rand, it’s for the good of yourself.

I picked up a friend’s copy of “White Trash”, a history of class in America and skimmed a bit of it this weekend. Franklin, despite all the good he did, was trying to figure out what to do with all the stupid lazy people that he needed to do the grunt work, like clearing forest and stuff. But our laws have focused more on the equality and rights side of what he advocated. Franklin and the other founders started a conversation, knowing they would be found to be wrong on some parts. With Rand, her focus is on keeping whatever you get, through inheritance or laws that allow you to exploit laborers, doesn’t matter, if you got it legally, it’s yours forever. There’s nothing left after you strip away the non-compassionate greedy stuff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24
CuthbertJ - 11 August 2017 09:44 AM

I would say her ideas have been misused and misunderstood by those who have caused these things. Just like many of Jesus’ ideas have been misunderstood by Christians throughout the ages to cause harm. (And no I’m not comparing the two, just giving an example.)

Let me add though that I’m just trying to help you understand her ideas.
I don’t necessarily agree with them. Just like if you explained Nazism to me I shouldn’t think you’re a Nazi.

Hmmm, then start explaining. 
I offered an exposing quote - please explain why you think I’m misreading her words?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2