I highly recommend reading her thoughts on this topic. You strike me as someone who would, perhaps, resonate with her thoughts. Not pushing her as the end all and be all of thinking on Philosophy, with a capitol P, however her arguments are compelling IF one thinks about long-term outcomes and objective evidence. She is described as an Objectivist. [Leonard Peikoff wrote "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, I recommend it.] My reading, on her take on Altruism, in a nutshell (and me not writing as someone who thinks he is an expert on this - for an expert is just someone who was a drip under pressure LOL) is that one can't help others unless and until one brings oneself to a point where one no longer needs help themselves. Suggested Ayn Rand readings, in addition to the Leonard Peikoff book noted above, are: The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
Thank you. I haven't read her but I have read extensively about her. Not 100% onboard with objectivism as an ideal. But I should eventually read her work directly.
Let me split a hair with you (my hair - what’s left of it - not your hair) on the words “…as an ideal.” You probably don’t need this stated but let me state it to get it off my chest. I’m splitting this hair because I don’t want you to approach Objectivism as THE solution and then blame my suggestion if it does not resonate with you. My point is that I am cautious of so-called “ideals” because they (and you might have an inkling as to why in my case) are like hero worship. “Never meet your hero” is the old saying related to this thought. Why? You’ve made them out, in your mind, to be more than they could possibly be and thus you’ll just be disappointed. It’s a pessimistic but realistic (possibly objective) attitude and yet usually accurate. Anyway, that’s the hair I want to split. Philosophies, with a capitol P, are just useful tools (or, in many modern cases, distracting and misguiding tools only useful to those who want to distract and misguide, but I digress…) These philosophical tools are not the answer to all of the challenges of the universe. Perhaps they should be used only as keys, like the tiny symbol keys on a map that are stuck down in some obscured corner or on flip side of a physical map, as coded ways to figure out where you have been, where you might be at this moment, and where you could possibly be heading. I continue to find that Objectivism helps me see the terrain very clearly and yet, because others do not approach life objectively, they are figuratively speaking, constantly bumping or crashing into me and others because they have not yet found a map that more accurately corresponds with reality. The disharmony between the use of my maps and others using bad maps means I will continue to be disappointed IF I don’t remember the problem is I can see a difference between the symbols of our shared real landscape (reality) and our maps. Not everyone is using a more accurate map and, here’s the rub, one cannot force someone to use a more accurate map because that makes their map even less accurate. One must show, teach by example, a more accurate map so observers can update their own map.*
*Note that the problem with Religion, capital R, is that they try to make the map the terrain.
Very good take. I do believe, however, that there is also a key difference between "gratitude" that starts with, "Well, at least I have/do not have ..." versus gratitude that is felt when something truly good happens. The former emotion is, I think, generally pretty forced, whereas the latter is genuine, spontaneous, and overwhelming.
Also, as difficult as it is to read -- I am truly sorry to hear that you had to endure such a miserable childhood -- I always feel that I gain insight into my partner's family dynamic when I read your more autobiographical works. The mechanics seem almost identical -- same damned pattern. Thank you for sharing this.
Thank you for your input and for sharing your own perspective. I write so our similar experiences can connect. Maybe we find comfort in each other. Maybe insight. Maybe meaning. Who knows.
In reading this I was reminded of my reading of Ayn Rand's thoughts on the fallacy of altruism.
Somehow I have never managed to actually READ Rand. I think I own most of her books, but haven't opened them yet ...
So many books, so little time
Never read Ayn Rand. What were her thoughts on it? Altruism is self-serving, right?
I highly recommend reading her thoughts on this topic. You strike me as someone who would, perhaps, resonate with her thoughts. Not pushing her as the end all and be all of thinking on Philosophy, with a capitol P, however her arguments are compelling IF one thinks about long-term outcomes and objective evidence. She is described as an Objectivist. [Leonard Peikoff wrote "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, I recommend it.] My reading, on her take on Altruism, in a nutshell (and me not writing as someone who thinks he is an expert on this - for an expert is just someone who was a drip under pressure LOL) is that one can't help others unless and until one brings oneself to a point where one no longer needs help themselves. Suggested Ayn Rand readings, in addition to the Leonard Peikoff book noted above, are: The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
Thank you. I haven't read her but I have read extensively about her. Not 100% onboard with objectivism as an ideal. But I should eventually read her work directly.
Let me split a hair with you (my hair - what’s left of it - not your hair) on the words “…as an ideal.” You probably don’t need this stated but let me state it to get it off my chest. I’m splitting this hair because I don’t want you to approach Objectivism as THE solution and then blame my suggestion if it does not resonate with you. My point is that I am cautious of so-called “ideals” because they (and you might have an inkling as to why in my case) are like hero worship. “Never meet your hero” is the old saying related to this thought. Why? You’ve made them out, in your mind, to be more than they could possibly be and thus you’ll just be disappointed. It’s a pessimistic but realistic (possibly objective) attitude and yet usually accurate. Anyway, that’s the hair I want to split. Philosophies, with a capitol P, are just useful tools (or, in many modern cases, distracting and misguiding tools only useful to those who want to distract and misguide, but I digress…) These philosophical tools are not the answer to all of the challenges of the universe. Perhaps they should be used only as keys, like the tiny symbol keys on a map that are stuck down in some obscured corner or on flip side of a physical map, as coded ways to figure out where you have been, where you might be at this moment, and where you could possibly be heading. I continue to find that Objectivism helps me see the terrain very clearly and yet, because others do not approach life objectively, they are figuratively speaking, constantly bumping or crashing into me and others because they have not yet found a map that more accurately corresponds with reality. The disharmony between the use of my maps and others using bad maps means I will continue to be disappointed IF I don’t remember the problem is I can see a difference between the symbols of our shared real landscape (reality) and our maps. Not everyone is using a more accurate map and, here’s the rub, one cannot force someone to use a more accurate map because that makes their map even less accurate. One must show, teach by example, a more accurate map so observers can update their own map.*
*Note that the problem with Religion, capital R, is that they try to make the map the terrain.
Very good take. I do believe, however, that there is also a key difference between "gratitude" that starts with, "Well, at least I have/do not have ..." versus gratitude that is felt when something truly good happens. The former emotion is, I think, generally pretty forced, whereas the latter is genuine, spontaneous, and overwhelming.
Also, as difficult as it is to read -- I am truly sorry to hear that you had to endure such a miserable childhood -- I always feel that I gain insight into my partner's family dynamic when I read your more autobiographical works. The mechanics seem almost identical -- same damned pattern. Thank you for sharing this.
Thank you for your input and for sharing your own perspective. I write so our similar experiences can connect. Maybe we find comfort in each other. Maybe insight. Maybe meaning. Who knows.