*****Forwarded Message*****
···
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
From: David Silvus <djsilvus@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:55 am
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Gambling With an Edge Feb 17th
One of the most fundamental problems with her argument is the fact that, for
better or worse, our society is based upon the collective. I'm not saying
socialism -- it isn't. One cannot and will not succeed in any endeavor in a
vacuum, unless the goal is to live a hermit-like existence. Financial gain is
completely tied to the collective even in the most capitalist sense. Indeed,
what exactly allowed Ayn to live her comfortable existence to formulate such
lofty thoughts? The millions of people who purchased "The Fountainhead", that's
who. Without enough people with the disposable income to purchase her book, her
financial "independence" would not have existed.
That's certainly not to say that giving a beggar a dollar increases society's
lot, hence your own. But that brings us to the next problem with her "logic" --
its extremism. No one on the planet argues that you "do not have the right to
exist" if you don't give a beggar a dime. Her "logic" pushes altruism to an
absurd extreme because it is so difficult to argue against it in moderation.
It's not a particularly different approach used by those on the other extreme
with greed. Greed is not inherently bad, but there are those who equate greed
with a lack of moral compass, stealing, etc. Greed can certainly exist without
any of the latter, just as altruism can exist without being a "sacrificial
animal".
Indeed, in 2008 one of her disciples, Allan Greenspan, confessed to Congress
that his fundamental "flaw" (his word, not mine) was in applying objectivism to
the derivative markets.
As for the answer to the "mystical" word that blows altruism right out of the
water, it really isn't complicated. The answer to "why?" is "because it feels
good and feels like it's the right thing to do". Kant had it dead-on right --
there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. Altruism isn't the same
selflessness, although Rand clearly thought differently. If you derive no
emotional benefit from helping others and you can't grasp that there may be a
self reason to help others, then you shouldn't do it. Unfortunately, I would
question how much humanity you really have if that's the case. There isn't much
that separates us from the rest of the animals on this planet -- the opposable
thumb and sentience coupled with sapience are about it. While the former has
nothing to do with altruism the latter 2 certainly do, be it motivation because
it "feels good" or out of recognition that you gain by the collective's gain.
-----Original Message-----
From: GURU PERF <guruperf@att.net>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Gambling With an Edge Feb 17th
If you're going to be talking about Ayn Rand's philosophy, at least give her the
justice of first, understanding, and second, accurately conveying, what she
espouses.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities 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."
""Now there is one word-a single word-which can blast the morality of altruism
out of existence and which it cannot withstand-the word: "Why?" Why must man
live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that
the good? There is no earthly reason for it-and, ladies and gentlemen, in the
whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.
It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was
mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been
called upon to justify it-or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of
justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith.
What most moralists-and few of their victims-realize is that reason and altruism
are incompatible.""