contradictions and exceptions...
Posted by LeeCrites 10 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I have been struck by what, to me, personally, are some contradictions in my personal philosophy, especially as it has to do with Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. Here it is in a nutshell:
As an individual, I seek for my own best interests. I believe the John Galt line: "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
As a Christian, I seek to do good to others, to give freely to help those in need. I could quote scriptures to show this doctrine, but those who are Christian already know it, and those who are not Christian probably already know it well enough.
I am NOT wanting religion bashing or "that's what you get for being stupid enough to believe" responses. What I am asking is for those who have this duality in their life, how do they, personally put the two together. I will respond with how I do it after submitting this.
As an individual, I seek for my own best interests. I believe the John Galt line: "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
As a Christian, I seek to do good to others, to give freely to help those in need. I could quote scriptures to show this doctrine, but those who are Christian already know it, and those who are not Christian probably already know it well enough.
I am NOT wanting religion bashing or "that's what you get for being stupid enough to believe" responses. What I am asking is for those who have this duality in their life, how do they, personally put the two together. I will respond with how I do it after submitting this.
I will say this much, to that point: I know a lot of people (not just LDS and/or Christian) who have adopted a mindset of being of service to others, and the quality of their life is very high. There really does seem to be something to the "lose yourself" doctrine.
For me, that all changes the moment someone decides that "doing good for others" is so important that they need to force their "charitable acts" on others. Today we call them liberals, marxists, progressives, etc.
My self worth is generated from within me. I work on self improvement for me. I want to be the best me possible -- for me. Part of that process includes helping others become the best they can be. The percent of nationally (internationally) recognized leadership development authors and speakers who talk about this point -- Christian, Buddhist, agnostic, whatever -- is incredible. It is almost axiomatic. Leaders help others become better people.
If Ayn Rand called people like that "second handers," and denigrated them, then that flushes a lot of her reputation in my mind.
virtuous. LS donates a not insignificant amount of talent with small children at the beginning of their journey. I imagine she has spent countless hours trying to have intellectual discussions with teachers at the primary level. You have shared some of your experiences being a leader. Maybe, LS, you could share a couple of stories, to give Lee an idea. I know you previously, I am thinking about several stories, but particularly the little boy who loves to play revolutionary war. Might throw some context in the mix-
There are at least five "love languages." (see The Five Love Languages, by Gary Chapman). I actually think he missed at least two, but that's just me. Each person has a core "need" which, when expressed by others, "fills their love tank." One of those is "words of affirmation." People telling you, verbally, how they appreciate what you did and your impact in their life. It is a common trait.
Some folks couldn't care less. Say "thanks," don't say it, no difference. Their "love tank" is filled differently. I have a lodge brother whose wife's love language is quality time. Say what he'd like, she only feels loved when he spends time with her. Sitting in the living room, each reading their books, makes her feel more loved than jewelry.
From LS's description, it simply appears AR doesn't like folks whose love language is words of affirmation. I guess that wasn't one of her's, so she considered it un-valuable, and, it appears, even condemned it.
Granted, I have not ready ANY of Fountainhead, so I am working entirely off of LS's description. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.
1) Words of Affirmation: This language uses words to affirm other people.
2) Quality Time: This language is all about giving the other person your time and/or undivided attention.
3) Gifts: For some people, what makes them feel most loved is to receive a gift.
4) Acts of Service: For these people, actions speak louder than words.
5) Physical Touch: To this person, nothing speaks more deeply than (appropriate) touch.
I see the logic in his groupings. They are all something a spouse or friend can give to another, freely, to help build them up, emotionally.
He missed some, but they are not within the power of one individual to give to another, they must be taken. The main one I see is "Power and Control." But now we are jumping off into a mired mass of topics totally off the subject.
power and control seems to deviate from the other five. and seems kinda negative. maybe I'm misunderstanding.
I have done leadership seminars where this book was the topic. I have had participants and peers who read the book, understood the points, and took the test. They found that some of the items were nice, but none of them really "fit."
For me, my love tank can get filled with "that kind" of physical touch (obviously from my wife, thank you very much...), or you can do something nice for me, and I'll feel loved. Gifts are good; spending time talking and working with me is really nice; genuine expressions and compliments go a long way.
But what fills my tank fastest? Seeing someone I helped succeed -- truly succeed! They don't even have to make any kind of public pronouncement that they "owe it all to me." In fact, I'd almost rather they didn't. Just seeing the people I poured some of my effort, love, concern, etc into turn their life around and become successful makes my little heart go pitter-pat!
And that, my friend, is not on Gary's list.
I had heard of her a LONG time ago, and even saw part of an interview she gave. She talked about the virtues of selfishness and the evils of altruism. In this discussion she talked a couple of times about charity work, and it just seemed it was never in a good way.
I think that I know (and you know) your answer...and I would agree with you 100%.
LeeCrites stated: "In some of my reading of other sites and commentary on Ayn Rand and the philosophical aspects of her teaching, it just felt to me like anything done for charitable purposes was seen as an evil."
I suggest that LeeCrites is right in incorporating what he needs from Rand, with what he needs from his subjective view of charity.
I agree with his personal application of both worlds....
It does cast a slightly different light on it. I guess she is simply saying charity is okay under certain circumstances. There were other quotes on the same page which made her look less, well, charitable (meaning socially nice and accommodating), and were not as germane to the discussion, so I left them out.
Perhaps the issue was she had to take such a hard-line stand in order to think her message would be heard that many of the quotes, taken out of context, just don't sound that "nice."
Because I find that the definitions are one and the same.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c...
self·less
[self-lis]
adjective
having little or no concern for oneself, especially with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s...
I believe I have to make the best/most of myself in order to be of service to others. What can a poor, broke dude do to help a struggling family? Commiserate? What can someone with over 20 years of leadership development and 36 years of business experience do? A dang site more than sitting around grousing about the economy!
If I did not struggle to make myself better, then there is no way I could help anyone else. So I am selfish, and focused on self-improvement, so I can be serviceable to those around me, who, by their attitudes and actions, tell me they are ready to take the next step.
What I also try to follow is “Live and let live” which leads to “Attraction not promotion” This is where it could get sticky when it comes to spreading the word. I follow the twelve step principals, which does not come in conflict with any religion; by design. By practicing these principals in all my affairs, I am living a philosophy; which led me here as the philosophies are similar. Since you asked (otherwise I wouldn’t say anything [live and let live, attraction not promotion] I’d suggest you read them, it’ll take 5 minutes. It’s worked for me 30 years this October (God [as I understand him] willing). The sixth word in the first step can be replaced by anything, the rest is universal. You know what they say in New York this time of year “It’s not the heat it’s the humility” I wish you the best.
There are folks who will screw anyone they can. They steal from the poor and elderly. Forget them. There are far more folks who will give you the shirt off their backs to help. I'll bet some are even AR fans... ;-)
Thinlk of the scene where Dagny wanted a cigarette... there was no way to buy a pack, as she had no currency that had any value whatsoever, but she was given one, not out of a beg or plea, but as a righteous and self-induced act of giving. Therein lies the difference...
Last year while doing contract work in the Bay Area (my main "job" is as a senior systems engineer), I noted a woman and her two kids trying to go to sleep in a car next to my suburban. The kids were hungry and cold; she was frustrated and crying. I did something truly stupid, I know -- I'm smarter than this, but I just felt compelled to do something. I said: "Darlin, I'm an old grandpa, and I just can't stand to see kids go to bed hungry. Let me buy them some dinner."
We went two blocks to the Denny's, and I bought the three of them dinner. We sat there and talked for a good while -- until after 3am.
I talked with the mom about the decisions that brought her to that point in her life, and what she might look at doing to fix things. We talked at length about what options she had, and did not have, based on the choices she had made in the past. One of the leadership development lessons we teach is: “Our achievements of today are but the sum total of our thoughts of yesterday. You are today where the thoughts of yesterday have brought you and you will be tomorrow where the thoughts of today take you.” (Blaise Pascal)
I "invested" what companies have paid me more than $1,000 to teach their managers, probably $100 in cash, a blanket and two pillows for the kids, and 5 hours of my time, and a night's sleep. When we were finished, she was writing her goals and a to-do list for the rest of the week. The smile on her face knowing she had a future was of more value to me than everything I "spent" on her.
A couple of weeks later I saw her at Trader Jo's buying food. She didn't see me. She was smiling and talking about her new job.
Obviously this is an extreme example. But it shows a point. When I feel compelled to invest my time, energy, money, effort, whatever into someone, I do so with impunity. Sometimes I am more charitable than most folks, and if I truly talked about all of the things I do to "invest" in others, I'd probably be called an idiot. I probably am.
In another reply, you said "sometimes religious people have a hard time separating what they really WANT to do from what they think they SHOULD do."
I had a lot on my mind and was tired. The "last thing I wanted to do" was spend time and money on some total strangers. But I'm a grandpa -- and seeing two young children going to bed in the back seat of a dirty car hungry just pulled at me. How could I walk away from that?
It was, really, a form of "guilt" that made me take the first step.
The smallest bill I had in my wallet would easily take care of their needs at the moment.
I made the first step not knowing the mother would listen to me, or that I would even talk to her seriously.
Sitting there in the Denny's with those two faces looking at me in excited anticipation of more pancakes and sausage than they could possibly eat made me take the next step -- to sit down beside the woman and start asking her what went wrong.
It was not a "guilt free" deal. Guilt moved me to action; a feeling that I had a "moral duty" to help those two children pushed me to do something truly stupid.
I, personally, could not have eaten dinner or slept that night if I had simply driven away. Knowing there were people who did so made me wonder at just how callous our society has become.
Like I said, the smallest bill I had in my wallet (a $50) could have fed them. I could have simply tossed it in the window, said "go feed the kids" and left. That would have "satisfied" the situation -- but not what I felt was my moral duty. I know, "moral duty" is anathema to AR, especially in this context.
As I said in another post, perhaps AR felt like she had to be so firm and unwavering in her statements in order to have her point understood. Perhaps if she was standing there instead of me that she would have done the same thing, and for the same reasons. I'd like to think so.
Ayn Rand had (and taught) a certain type of moral duty: "Never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser value"; in essence, have integrity -- do what is right.
Now I can't speak for you (though I can guess based on your descriptions of yourself), but I can speak for myself.
I value the potential of what other people can become (some more than others based on objective observation, etc...). Had I been in the same situation, I would have valued the possibility of that mother getting back onto her feet. I would have valued the prospect of her and her children being given hope in a benevolent universe by a stranger in the midst of a seemingly hopeless situation. I would have valued the prospect of what the children could have grown up to become if their sense of life could be impacted in a positive way. And there are likely a million other things I would have very genuinely (and I would argue, RATIONALLY) valued more (*far more*) than holding onto that little bit of money and time that was spent.
Therefore, had I (and if you value similar to me, had you) decided not to give them that time and money, it would be a breach of my value system -- it would be sacrificing a greater value (the multiple awesome potential opportunities in the lives of those people) for the sake of a lesser value (a little bit of cash and time). Therefore, the thought of not giving it to them would have given me a moral sense of guilt -- not because of an obligation I had to THEM, but because of the obligation I have to MYSELF -- to my values. I would have sensed (even subconsciously) that I was betraying my values, and therefore incurred a just guilt.
But THAT is the only proper way to think of such a situation. If the guilt stemmed from anything *other* than a compromise of your values -- and if your values were not objectively rational, then there would be a moral problem in your thinking, feeling, and acting out of the situation.
For what it's worth, not only can Christianity and Ayn Rand's morality be integrated, but they actually demand each other. Check out my blog: www.thechristianegoist.wordpress.com
I "want" to give to a certain university. But, if they are teaching or researching philosophy that is intended to destroy me, is that right?
The contradictions you describe (individual/christian) are the source of your discontent. You seem to be trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
He didn't support the cause, or like his brother-in-law, but it made his life easier (read: self interest)..
"I rebelled against demands for an unearned wealth-but I thought it was my DUTY to grant an unearned respect to a mother who hated me, an UNEARNED support to a brother who plotted for my destruction."
At the time of the check writing, he does what he accepts as being in his best interest.
Why would he do otherwise? He was free to say no....
He evolves as to what he understands to be 'his best interest' through the novel...that is the plot.
He never strays from working for his best interest, but he does redefine just what that is.
You have to see this. Right?
His goal was to make the finest steel ever known to man: Rearden steel.
Why? Because it was his dream, and he was able to do this.
And he did...on page 1.
I knew that (not).... ;-)
At the same time, I feel like I can, of my own free will and accord, take some of the blessings I have been given and some of the surplus I have, and help others who have not had some of the same opportunities I have had and/or have been victimized by someone (something), and need help. I do not, personally, equate helping others with "living for the sake of another."
I have had people give me opportunities I probably did not deserve, using their position and resources to help bring me up to a higher level than I was. I do not believe they were "living for the sake of another," but that they saw some potential in me they could work with. I certainly do not expect another man to work for my sake -- I expect him to pay me for the value and benefit I give him.
So I can bring both concepts, living for self and Christian charity, together without feeling like I am doing either an injustice.
If you receive value, or happiness being charitable then it isn't altruism as it is commonly understood since you consider it a worthy and equitable exchange. No problem exists with the way you dispose of your property so long as it is voluntary. Even Rand had some appreciation for Christian ethics. It was the mysticism and the martyrdom that she was critical of.
I am of the opinion that it is better to adopt as much of the philosophy as you can. What difference does it make to anyone what you believe may happen in the afterlife so long as you do not force it upon others?
We have discussed this topic before with others and some here will not agree with me and believe you must accept all of the tenets of Objectivism, but I believe there is value to be had regardless.
Regards,
O.A.
I see a lot of Christians who, I believe, are buffaloed by the left/liberal line of charity at all costs, and get snookered into supporting things which are, to my way of thinking, quite un-Christian. When I talk to them about the "evils of altruism," it almost sounds un-Christ-like -- but that, I think, is because they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the liberal bias that they cannot see the truth for themselves.
I don't really see an issue with being charitable, and keeping the Galt oath. But there are still nagging thoughts floating around about how to implement both. Hence my query.
Hopefully you are honest enough to understand this in not bashing.
I could cite a number of non-religious based sociology studies showing how being charitable to others and sacrificing personal interests to others makes people feel better and happier. I could show a number of non-religious based leadership studies showing the same thing. Your logic fails in actual empirical studies.
Furthermore, not all religious claims are "mystical," and darn few of them are truly irrational.
If, on the other hand, the definition can include things which might have a negative financial impact, but have a positive impact psychologically or on a personal and/or emotional level, then there is something to talk about.
Personal development is a long-term program. You don't read a book and become a better person. All reading the book can possibly do is put you on a path of self-improvement. Reading more, investing more time and effort, focusing on doing things differently, all are long-term items. This is, actually, why most "personal development seminars" (or "leadership development seminars") fail. People assume that spending 3 - 4 hours with some dude on a Saturday will change their lives from then on. All it did was put a crossroads in front of them, and force them to take one path or the other.
My "investment" in that 32yo mulatto female with her two young children only placed the fork in the road for her. The choice of her taking the new route was hers, and hers alone. There is zero positive impact on my bottom line from that investment. It cost me time; it cost me money; it cost me resources I had in my suburban, and I got nothing tangible from it. From a financial perspective, that was a bad decision.
Parents sacrifice for their children, and that makes them better parents, better people -- and better grandparents. It could be easily argued that this "sacrifice" is in the family's self-interest, it might not be in the *individual's* self-interest. Where do you draw that line?
There are jobs I did take, or did not take, based on the impact that position or location would have on my children. Today, with five grown, married children, I am seeing the fruits of those sacrifices in the lives of new families.
So, again, I have to come back to the definition of "personal interests." The more narrowly it is defined, the more accurate your comment is. The more widely it is defined, I believe, the less accurate.
1.sacrifice means when faced with options, you purposely choose that which gives you less objective value.
Had you been facing a key business importance or a family emergency to spend time with this individual and her family, then that would would philosophically have been a sacrifice. If you had time and resources, and you saw an opportunity to provide guidance that might have impacted this individual AND this something you are drawn to do, it is not a sacrifice.
Rand is clear on this.
2. investment does not mean sacrifice and not all investments "pay off."
3. We all make choices regarding raising our family, etc. (I don't mean etc lightly)
I chose to not pursue a career while raising a family. My husband and I discerned all available options and focused on the most important goals we had for our family. Choices are not sacrifices. They are trade-offs, opportunity costs.
I just want to clarify definitions in moving forward with the discussion, so I understand your points accurately.
Regarding selfish versus unselfish: the dictionary just cites contemporary usage. That doesn't make it rational. Consider Orwell's 1984 monologue in which ungood is to replace all terms related bad.
Regarding Rearden's donation: you're asserting a range of moment argument. The guilt is irrational; therefore, all decisions based on that premise are unsound.
"I seek to do good to others, to give freely to help those in need" this statement is vague. If there are no qualifiers, taking action on above statement is morally wrong.
I'm interested to see if you can qualify here.
I'll get you started. By your productivity, self-respect, pursuing your own happiness- you are "doing good." What other requirements are you adding to that?