- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"Postivism alone holds at once both a noble and true language when it urges us to _live for others_. This, the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and of duty. Implicitly and indirectly it sanctions our personal instincts, as the necessary conditions of our existence, with the proviso that they must be subordinate to those of altruism. With this limitation, we are even ordered to gratify our personal instincts, with the view of fitting ourselves to be better servants of Humanity, whose we are entirely." -- Catechism of Positive Religion (Congreve translation, 1858.)
The word "altruism" did not exist before Comte invented his "Religion of Humanity." I have a facsimile edition of Noah Webster's 1828 _American Dictionary of the English Language_. The word "altruism" is not listed
Cheers
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Cheers
http://www.petloss.com/rainbowbridge.htm...
Altruism is the opposite of egoism. Those atrocities were and are committed on other people. Absent the other, what could you do? War is altruistic because "we the people" and "we of our nation" and "we of our religion" etc. all demand of you that you fight (or otherwise support the fighting). Meanwhile the enemy is not us, _not to be considered human_: japs, krauts, reds. commies, towelheads, camel jockeys, kikes, micks, spics, dagos, red coats, blue bellies ... So anything like benevolence in altruism even if it were real would not apply.
Also you have to ask where is the self-interest in being in a war? Granted that you could find a reason to for an egoist to be in the military, why would a soldier motivated by self-interest commit an atrocity against innocents?
On the other hand, productive work is selfish and self-motivated. You do not need other people to do it. When you can benefit from them - the chemical engineer buys a batch of chemicals from a supply house - the trade is voluntary. You count on their self-interest and failing to achieve that, you leave them alone and move on. That is egoism.
Gassing people and raping them is clearly not of their choosing. You make others objects who must live (and die) for you. That is altruistic in the true sense of being other-directed.
Altruism as defined by Comte and even scaled down in our vernacular always requires the existence of other people as not just the primary consideration, but the _only_ consideration.
In _The Fountainhead_ Keating says to Toohey, "I don't follow you..." Toohey quips, "I have so many followers I have to brush them out of my hair." He is calling his followers lice. He holds them in contempt.
Awards that come from your peers are valued as acknowledgments of the achievements you know you attained. Those accolades come from people whom you respect. That is selfishness. Garnering adulation from people whom you despise is a consequence of altruism, both on their part and more saliently on yours.
To answer your other question: Yes, the need for sacrifices is altruism. It depends on others without whom it could not happen.
That is why Galt's oath has two parts: "I swear by my life, and by my love of it, never to live for the sake of another man, or ask another man to live for mine."
From dictionary.com
noun
1. a self-centered or selfish person (opposed to altruist ).
2. an arrogantly conceited person; egotist.
3. an adherent of the metaphysical principle of the ego, or self; solipsist.
Certainly a tyrant fits the first two definitions of egoist. I believe you are using the third definition. Am I correct?
A tyrant is not an objectivist because a tyrant asks other men to live for his. On that, we can agree.
a believer in egoism
an egocentric or egotistic person
a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action
a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions
excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance
One devoted to one's own interests and advancement; an egocentric person.
An egotist.
An adherent of egoism.
a self-centered or selfish person.
an arrogantly conceited person; egotist.
an adherent of egoism.
--------------
"...you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning."
- Atlas Shrugged
When Rand wrote _The Fountainhead_ egoist and egoTist were synonymous. Objectivist psychology points out that the egoTist needs other people and is not an egoist.
"Arrogant" and "conceited" are labels ascribed to you by others.Typically, they say that when you do not notice them. That does not apply to a politician of any stripe: they do notice other people. Arrogant, conceited people often actually appear socially humble and withdrawn: they do not socialize well. One diagnosis that I do not like but find useful is "Asperger Syndrome." Someone like that never becomes a leader. But in our common culture today, arrogant and conceited certainly describe Dr. Sheldon Cooper of "The Big Bang Theory." Common folk reject the arrogant and conceited. Those common folk are the very people whom the leader needs to be a leader.
Many people did evacuate on their own, but those who did not _waited to be told_. They looked to others. Any parish president could have ordered a local evacuation, and declared a local emergency. None did. They looked to Mayor Ray Nagin. He waited for the National Weather Service to declare landfall.
After the obvious was known to all, President Bush, FEMA director Michael D. Brown, and many others all failed to assume responsibility and instead considered their relationship to other people, rather than to the event itself. The Danziger Bridge Shootings were another example of altruism at work. It was an immediate decision to sacrifice a few for the good of all. It was the wrong decision, tactically, but nothing in the motivation was contrary to emergency protocols.
Of course the looting by the police was the height of altruism. Someone else had to provide the goods for the police to take. They took those things not because they needed them - no officer was without a TV at home - but to add to their prestige in the amount of physical things that other people would see them hold. They acted on a deep and old paradigm that property is social status. You need other people for that.
The tyrants, however, are living for themselves. While AR correctly pointed out selfishness' virtue, I see nothing virtuous or altruistic about the tyrant's actions themselves. Unlike some issues, on this issue, I am willing to be corrected, but I think it would a reach to call a tyrant's actions either virtuous or altruistic.
When they do live in ostentatiously it is always far beyond what one person can enjoy: they want others to ogle, gape, and admire. Whatever their achievements the robber barons of previous century often were trapped by "other people" for whom they built their ostentatious palaces. Here and now, it is more common for millionaires to be modest. I believe that our generation which was the first influenced by Ayn Rand and which was called the Me Generation really did generally learn to find inner values, as opposed to the need for social approval. Warren Buffett "still lives in the same house in the same Happy Hollow neighborhood where he bought the home in 1958 for $31,500. It has 5 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms and is 6234 square feet, the house was built in 1921. In 2005 it had a taxable value of $ 690,000." - http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/kwze6btvQ...
Whatever else his sins may be, Warren Buffett does not need your approval.
Consider the massive parades, the displays of military hardware, the ranks of commoners cheering or saluting the reviewing stand. That is the perfect display of altruism. The egoist needs none of that.
Finally, please note your language: "I see nothing virtuous or altruistic about the tyrant's actions themselves." You equate altruism with virtue. You _allow_ the virtue of selfishness, but you _assume_ that it must meet the standard of altruism as concern for others.
You would expect an actual Egoist to use "me", "myself" and "I" most of the time.
Do you not see tyrants as having massive egos? Tyrants sacrifice nothing of their own and have no concern for others, other than to demand their sacrifice. It is the demand of others' sacrifice that I see as the opposite of virtue. The "sacrificing nothing of their own" can be virtuous for Objectivists, but no Objectivist would demand the sacrifices of others.
That's my theory as a novice psychologist and full-time engineer.
The only disagreement we have is over the tyrant himself.
http://shaneatwellblog.blogspot.com/2011...
Mahatma Gandhi- Supported every claim of the propagandist Jinnah during the separation of Pakistan from India, by giving in to Muslim threats and actual violence cost the lives of many Hindus. 14 million people were displaced, there were half a million fatalities most of them Hindu at the hands of Muslim terrorists.
Mother Teresa- One of the great frauds of modern times who was part of the gang that gave us the slaughters of the middle ages, the inquisition, and recently massive child abuse.
Hitchens also has similar charges to lay against Mahatma Gandhi. His peasant utopia meant death and suffering.
As for Mother Theresa, if you still believe that she was virtuous in any way - even by so called "altruistic" standards, then you are in for a rude awakening. For over a thousand years Catholic orders actually did and do care for the sick. Mercy Systems, St. Joseph,... they operate real hospitals in the USA - and not without criticism, granted. However, Mother Theresa was all about suffering, letting them suffer, allowing them to suffer, nurturing their suffering while _refusing gifts of medicine_. She was the perfect embodiment of altruist evil, a soul sister to Stalin.
Who said they did?
The article says, "Every genocidal dictator in history has risen to power calling for sacrifice."
The sentence does not have an equal sign.
The article does NOT say, everyone who have called for sacrifice have been genocidal dictators.
Their enemies were speechless because they feared tyrants less than death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR_fkXB86...
Mao was perfectly sane, just evil.