A good look into mental gymnastics that turn "altruism" into "compassion."
Posted by jmlesniewski 11 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
What follows is an excerpt. My only refutation would be Well, that's a nice story, but prove it's true metaphysically.
"If one views self and others not as distinct forms with individual essences, however, but as interdependent composites that are constantly changing, then one may understand that altruism does not exist even in the Randian sense. Altruism always involves dilution of the one for the benefit of the other. In an interdependent and impermanent reality, however, the true essence of the one and that of the other cannot be defined from one moment to the next - because they are in constant flux, and thus pure, undiluted essence really does not exist in anyone! It's like the old saying that you can never step into the same river twice, because the water is always flowing.
In this reality, from the moment we are born we are like animated stacks of Legos - continually being stacked up in the early years, and taken apart in the later years. What defines me and everyone else (and everything else) is that we are all made of the same Legos that are constantly being passed from stack to stack in order to keep the animation going. We are not the same "self" that we used to be years ago - and our definition of "self" can change in an instant, depending on circumstances over which we have no control. Since we all share the same fate and the same basic nature - then "Altruism" is meaningless."
"If one views self and others not as distinct forms with individual essences, however, but as interdependent composites that are constantly changing, then one may understand that altruism does not exist even in the Randian sense. Altruism always involves dilution of the one for the benefit of the other. In an interdependent and impermanent reality, however, the true essence of the one and that of the other cannot be defined from one moment to the next - because they are in constant flux, and thus pure, undiluted essence really does not exist in anyone! It's like the old saying that you can never step into the same river twice, because the water is always flowing.
In this reality, from the moment we are born we are like animated stacks of Legos - continually being stacked up in the early years, and taken apart in the later years. What defines me and everyone else (and everything else) is that we are all made of the same Legos that are constantly being passed from stack to stack in order to keep the animation going. We are not the same "self" that we used to be years ago - and our definition of "self" can change in an instant, depending on circumstances over which we have no control. Since we all share the same fate and the same basic nature - then "Altruism" is meaningless."
I found it hard to read much further than that.
A person motivated by self interest and self worth will see worth in others around them and attempt to invest in that value to gain more value in return.
A person who is engaged in self loathing with also loath the world around them and always be looking for next thing to loot to make themselves feel better.
It is not if a person should do an act of kindness for another as we all know it is generally in our best interest to treat others with kindness. It is the motivational force behind the act of kindness that says if we practice altruism and ultimately our own demise or something else like objectivism and our own preservation.
The author calls it compassionate, and I am not sure this is the right word as it instills some duty driven means for helping others. I would simply call it the desire to help oneself through your aid to others. Any shorter wording for the description and I believe it to be unclear in its meaning
Obviously, this is false. The two main heroes in Atlas Shrugged did not always maintain their values. Henry Rearden for instance started out quite the altruist toward his dependent and uncaring family. Was he a "zero" for sacrificing value for less value when it came to family? Obviously not.