The Virtue of Selfishness
Posted by anarchistbanjo 12 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
Ayn Rand does not have a monopoly on the idea of the importance of ego and self interest. I would like to share a few other influences that I've run across that were much earlier.
Max Sterner wrote "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" [The Ego and its own] a very influential work that has been translated into English at least three times.
Stanislaw Przybyszewski wrote "Zur Psychologie des Individuums" [On the psychology of the individual] in 1893. He also wrote "Synagogue Satans" [Synagogue of Satan] in 1897. [an attempt to document the rise of Satanism through the early church]
Aleister Crowley wrote essentially that when a person followed their own true will and nothing else, the entire universe prospered. There was no law other than to follow one's own true will.
These revolutionary authors were well beyond their time and to me at least Ayn Rand is singing much the same song. It would be very interesting to know if she was influenced by any of them.
Frank Wallace and his Neo-Tech movement refined her ideas to the point where there only needed to be one law:
The use of coercive force against an individual can never be justified. [I can't remember the exact words]
For Crowley it was, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Of course everyone knows about Nietzche.
Let me just say that all of these authors have influenced me deeply in a profound way and a good way. But each has offered insights into totally separate areas as well, areas unique to each author.
Each law that is passed takes away a freedom that we once had. Religious mysticism is the root evil of today's world.
In the words of Przybyszewski:
"In a confused battle the church destroyed one by one the veins through which the blood of the earth flowed in man. It destroyed the unconscious natural selection process of nature that expressed itself in external beauty, strength and nobility. It defended everything that nature wanted to eliminate, that which was so powerfully repulsive, filth, ugliness, disease, the crippled and the castrated. The church would have loved it if everyone was castrated, the light extinguished, and the entire earth allowed to be consumed with acid rain. Its only desire, its burning request, was the ardent wish that the recently promised Day of Judgment would finally come at last."
My words may not reflect or mimic those of Ayn Rand, but my heart comes from a similar place.
Max Sterner wrote "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" [The Ego and its own] a very influential work that has been translated into English at least three times.
Stanislaw Przybyszewski wrote "Zur Psychologie des Individuums" [On the psychology of the individual] in 1893. He also wrote "Synagogue Satans" [Synagogue of Satan] in 1897. [an attempt to document the rise of Satanism through the early church]
Aleister Crowley wrote essentially that when a person followed their own true will and nothing else, the entire universe prospered. There was no law other than to follow one's own true will.
These revolutionary authors were well beyond their time and to me at least Ayn Rand is singing much the same song. It would be very interesting to know if she was influenced by any of them.
Frank Wallace and his Neo-Tech movement refined her ideas to the point where there only needed to be one law:
The use of coercive force against an individual can never be justified. [I can't remember the exact words]
For Crowley it was, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Of course everyone knows about Nietzche.
Let me just say that all of these authors have influenced me deeply in a profound way and a good way. But each has offered insights into totally separate areas as well, areas unique to each author.
Each law that is passed takes away a freedom that we once had. Religious mysticism is the root evil of today's world.
In the words of Przybyszewski:
"In a confused battle the church destroyed one by one the veins through which the blood of the earth flowed in man. It destroyed the unconscious natural selection process of nature that expressed itself in external beauty, strength and nobility. It defended everything that nature wanted to eliminate, that which was so powerfully repulsive, filth, ugliness, disease, the crippled and the castrated. The church would have loved it if everyone was castrated, the light extinguished, and the entire earth allowed to be consumed with acid rain. Its only desire, its burning request, was the ardent wish that the recently promised Day of Judgment would finally come at last."
My words may not reflect or mimic those of Ayn Rand, but my heart comes from a similar place.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103079020/Syna...
The others you are on your own! Ayn Rand of course was very against religion as are the writings of Frank Wallace. Przybyszewski is quite historical with early church history and gnosticism. This is not the history we have read in school. As Israel and the US debate nuking Iran one can't help but wonder if there is really a good reason or if it is simply to bring about the second coming of Christ. Religious lunacy is much different that spirituality in my opinion. For me mysticism that is grounded in objective reality is valid (self evident truth) while mysticism not grounded in objective reality is the most dangerous thing that exists in our world today-religious extremism.
I am a religious person, the existence of god is as undeniable as my own. All one needs to do is look around them at the complexities of the construction of the universe and it is obvious that a mind is behind it, not random chance.
The god that the "church" worshiped from the council of Nicaea forward certifiably is not a god that stands up to any reasoned evaluation of what the creator would have to be like. The council created that god to bring order to a decaying empire in an attempt to maintain control, which plunged us into 1000 years of oppression and darkness. In my view the radical Muslim sects are out to have a new event like Nicaea to once again enslave us under the name of a god who does not stand up to the measurements of one capable of creating this world and the universe that surrounds it.
For example, the mind that built this universe must understand basics of law, that all beings are governed by free-will and that the same law applies to all beings. If we are indeed the children of that god then he is also bound by the laws of the universe just as we are, and we have the ability to learn all that he has learned about how those laws govern the universe.
That god who created the universe would understand that agency, the ability to choose for oneself is the first law of the universe and cannot be ignored or done away with. Nor can the natural consequence of exercising that agency.
One thing that I find very interesting about the "church" of the dark ages is that burred within it were the Greek, roman and Jewish ideals of freedom. Those ideas were preserved within it, though deeply berried and they attempted to never have it fully surface. It did, and the ideas became a series of documents, court cases and philosophies over the years that led to the US constitution and the idea of self government and free agency. The same idea of freedom only existed in the western world. (good book that has a section on this, http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Freedom-Se...) )
Thanks again for a few authors to read.
Specific things will work, others will not. There is a right and a wrong way to do something.
This does not change for the mind that created the laws. He too is bound by the same laws/rules that govern his creation.
On a very simple scale if I want to have my car run well there are laws/rules of action that I must follow. If I do not change the oil and lube the friction points, change my timing belt... the car will no longer function. Even if I were to build every piece of the car with my own hands these rules would still apply.