Quote:
Originally Posted by Bube
I've read almost all of the wiki some time before, I might print it out for some bedside reading.
However, I also don't agree with objectivism, mainly because of the every-man-for-himself principle. But almost all of her other views are too harsh as well. And it's based too much on morality. If everybody was a perfect objectivist, it just might work. But when people start thinking outside the lines, and try to find shortcuts through life, it all falls apart.
|
Remember that she believes that morality and reason go hand in hand. Morality is a set of rules that we all live by to a certain extent because they are mutually beneficial. Therefore, those that behave immorally are punished, and we follow this to a certain extent with our laws.
You make a good point about things falling apart when people paint outside the lines, but because of her belief in individualism, its the individual who falls apart and not the group, because the group is looking out for their individual best interests. The main part that attracts me is 1) The belief that self-interest is not morally wrong, and honestly its not as long as you use reason/morality and 2) the realization that altruism is a myth, because we are being altruistic we are really just doing it because it makes us feel better about ourselves, so in the end all actions are based in self-interest. That doesn't mean that we should eliminate what we consider to be altruism, but that we shoudl recognize the reward of the act and accept it for what it is. If you help someone because it makes you feel good, is it worse than if you convince yourself it was selfless. Is the person any less-off because your motivation was based on emotional reward? There is no such thing as a selfless act, and in the end, our need to believe in altruism is a reflection of our own ego and not reality.
Rational self-interest benefits the group, because the more each individual concentrates on their own success and happiness, the more everyone succeeds, because success creates wealth and wealth creates more and better jobs and employment empowers the individual and enables their pursuit of happiness. In the end, the individual is the key to the success of the group.
Besides, when push comes to shove, all you can really control is your own actions, and your life is the sum of those actions, and not the result of anyone else's in interference. People can choose to accept what the fate others build for them, or choose to rip down those scaffolds and buld your own rewarding life. It is a choice.
And when compared to the collectivism of Marx and Engels, which is Rand's antithesis, Rand's philosophies have proven to be far more beneficial to society as a whole. Collectivism strips the individual of their identity, they feel no intrinsic motivation to succeed, because they are expressly told they mean nothing without everyone else. The state crushes the very thing it was intended to serve. Collectivism doesn't support the individual, it consumes them, and when you look at the attempts to create Marxist governments they have done nothing but oppress and consume their people.
Rational Self-Interest may not be perfect and is vulnerable to abuse by immoral and unreasonable people, but it in a world of imperfect people, it has enabled us to continue to succeed as a society and not stagnate or regress as cultures based on different principles have.
Quote:
|
Why do you say that I should read The Fountainhead first?
|
Long story short, its a lot less preachy. Example: Atlas Shrugged has a 30 page monologue.