Gittnitdone wrote: …
OK, I will play along as my time permits.
Lets start with the assumption that philosophy is the attempt to develop a systematic approach to dealing with the fundamental problems of life and to set standards and goals by which to conduct ourselves. As such, one’s philosophy must be rational and congruent. What is my purpose, what does it all mean, and how should I conduct myself?
In the interest of time, I will agree to the Wiki definition of Rands philosophy of Objectivism which is: Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man’s widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form?a work of art?that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.
Critics are quick to interpret this as meaning that it is all about materialism, greed, hedonism, with a healthy dose of Machiavellian ethics thrown in as well. This is all they do. They call on these four easily assailable strawmen and go on a moral crusade as though this is what she actually taught when in fact it is virtually the polar opposite of what she taught.
The most popular method on this board is to bring up the topic of altruism by using any other definition BUT the one she uses to define it. They love to conflate it with charity, as she is openly indifferent as to whether charity was a major virtue and definitely did not consider it a moral duty. “There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue.”
The argument goes something along the lines of “Rand believes altruism is evil and everyone knows that altruism is simply be charitable and helping others, you know, common human decency.” Then everyone who has never read one of her books thinks “well what a despicable cunt she must have been to believe such as this.” Except that this is not what she said and this is nowhere near the definition she clearly stated for altruism which is as follows: (forgive the cut and paste but this is such a central issue that it is necessary)
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice?which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction?which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialalities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: ?No.? Altruism says: ?Yes.?
Call me insane, but I believe the difference between these two definitions is very material to the judgement of the philosophy.
That’s all the time I have for the night…
