Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, no that is wrong. This is the definition of selfishness and it is consistant with Ayn Rand's beliefs.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives
I don't believe you understand Ayn Rand.
They just like to use her to justify their own selfish nature.
selfishness means you have to help yourself first before you can help others
ever heard of: " charity begins at home"
"God helps those who help themselves"....The quote was actually created by Ben Franklin and it appeared in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1757.
"Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid."
"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
Selfishness means taking care of your own self interest to the exclusion of the interests of others. It does not mean helping yourself so you can help others. Thats being responsible for yourself, not being selfish.
What happened to this country where being selfish is seen as a virture?
Selfishness means taking care of your own self interest to the exclusion of the interests of others. It does not mean helping yourself so you can help others. Thats being responsible for yourself, not being selfish.
What happened to this country where being selfish is seen as a virture?
What happened when the V.P. nominee believes that selfishness is a virtue. It says a lot about the party. You teach your children not to be selfish, but you vote for someone who believes that everyone should be selfish.
selfishness means you have to help yourself first before you can help others
ever heard of: " charity begins at home"
"God helps those who help themselves"....The quote was actually created by Ben Franklin and it appeared in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1757.
"Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid."
"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
Jesus would have taken care of everyone else in need before giving one thought to his own needs and you know it! There is no virtue in selfishness. For people who call themselves Christians to buy into Ayn Rant is mind-boggling. Ask the 'nuns on the bus' what they think of Paul Ryan's version of being a good Catholic, his devotion to Ayn Rant's philosophy. He doesn't live his faith. Some here in this thread have said Ryan only likes the economic ideas of Rant BUT that translates into believing in a government that has zero social programs, no heart, no helping hand up, etc.
Why do the most rabid of political activists behave in such a myopic way that views the world in terms of black and white, in absolutes and no measure of degrees.
Can it possibly be that ideas may selectively be chosen from whole concepts?
Why link Ryan with every point Rand ever professed?
Any evidence ryan has ever demonstrated a non sharing attitude?
If you can do that then you have to admit Obama embraces every word Rev Wright ever spewed and he is the offspring of this perpetuator of hate.
Oh, and sometimes words or phrases may be used in such a manner to grab attention. Using the opposite of what is expected can be a great attention getter. If one chooses to interpret words litterally, they are either a lawyer seeking to trump an opponent, a comedian or a person with a too rigid atttiude and few friends.
One can be selfish in a positive as well as negative way.
Paul Ryan's mentor Ayn Rand believed Selfishness was a virtue. I don't believe she had any children, but I wonder what she would have told her children in elementary school about sharing.
She purposely picked the word "selfishness" to rile people like you up. Selfishness used in her context would really mean "enlightened self interest." Enlightened self interest doesn't preclude the idea of sharing, helping the poor, donating money, etc. It just means you shouldn't do anything that goes against your own self interest
Sorry, no that is wrong. This is the definition of selfishness and it is consistant with Ayn Rand's beliefs.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives
I don't believe you understand Ayn Rand.
How dare you fill up your cupboards and cabinets with food before filling everyone else's around you.
How dare you cash that paycheck and put in your bank before you fill the coffers of all the others around you.
How dare you purchase a car for your own travel before helping everyone else to travel first.
How dare you marry your SO before making sure everyone else around you had someone to call significant.
How dare you have children for your own selfish procreation goals.
How dare you buy yourself clothes when there are naked children all across the planet.
How dare you buy yourself a computer when so many others around you can't even afford the internet service much less a computer.
How dare you be so selfish that you think because you're not flush with money that someone that is should be forced by the hand of government so that you can fulfill your own selfish wants and desires.
You're a selfish and self-centered woman/man who finds selfishness virtuous by your own everyday actions and choices.
That's effectively your argument against what Rand espoused.
Selfishness means taking care of your own self interest to the exclusion of the interests of others. It does not mean helping yourself so you can help others. Thats being responsible for yourself, not being selfish.
What happened to this country where being selfish is seen as a virture?
I'll tell you what happened ... the population has been dumbed down to the point of intellectual incoherence, with a total absence of the ability to employ reason or logic. This was accomplished first through training people to be subservient, mindless sheep, willing to be mentally herded by collectivist group think, which embraces the idiocy of allowing the volume of voices to decide what truth is, rather than allowing logic and reason to make such determinations.
A perfect illustration of this is taking place right here on this thread, as many of you actually believe you have the legitimate ability to define what other people believe, simply because you say so. The more you insist, the truer your claims ... or so you believe. And I experience this in almost every debate, regardless of subject, as so many will insist that they understand what I believe better than I do. And so you and others proceed along the same line in redefining what Ayn Rand's philosophy is, rather than actually challenging the reason and logic supporting her opinions.
That is to say .. you have a perfect right to disagree with another person's opinions or philosophy, but you do not get to redefine them first, and then disagree. To do so just means that you are disagreeing with yourself. Of course, you're free to do that too, but it's a rather inane display of ignorance and confusion.
Rand addressed this confusion specifically, right in the introduction of the book ... so there really is no excuse for continuing along the lines you and others are following here. Doing so just demonstrates either an intent to distort the opinion deliberately, or represents a direct confession of ignorance:
"The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?”
To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it"...
[/b]
Now, anyone with a passable grasp of reading skill and reason can easily see that every challenge and claim made on this thread thus far by the nay-sayers is void of an iota of legitimacy ... this passage directly addresses such mischaracterizations and misunderstandings very clearly.
I suggest people take advantage of the opportunity to read the book, which is available in it's entirety at the above posted link, absolutely free. It is a brilliant work of writing, and should be required reading in our schools, and there are many who could use the infusion of reason and logic contained therein.
The mind is like a muscle, and if you don't exercise it, it will atrophy. And there is a lot of intellectual and mental atrophy going on here, and in society at large. In our modern world of "Twitter" and instant gratification, and attention deficit disorder, we've become a society dominated by reactionary "non-thinkers", who's eyes glaze over and their minds become fogged in response to anything more than a sound bite. Apparently, this intellectual laziness extends to the extreme point that people cannot bother themselves to even read the introduction to a book, let alone the entire book itself, yet feel qualified to critique it and strenuously reject it.
This explains how we've been transformed from the "Land of the free, and the home of the brave", to "The land of the deceived, and the home of the depraved". It's well past time for the grown ups of our world to start using the heads for something other than a place to wear their baseball caps backwards.
For those unfortunates who remain confused, I say this .... the message which Rand is attempting to impart to you is that the concept of granting automatic legitimacy to "Altruism" is a facade, and a fraud which intends to deceive you and convince you to abandon the requirement of analyzing and assessing the ethics and moral implications of one's actions, and instead, simply accept the legitimacy of actions which claim to be taken for the benefit of others. Rand's contentions, for which I couldn't agree more, is that this error in reasoning is the foundation for almost every act of tyranny and aggression and violation of human rights throughout history. It has been the most common tactical ploy used by tyrants and despots of all flavors, as they convince the masses to abandon their own selfish interests for the good of the collective. This hive mind, collectivist mentality transforms the individual into a mindless, reason-less drone ... governed by, and at the mercy of emotional manipulation, rather than a logical, reasoning and thinking person who embraces individual liberty.
This was the concept rejected by our founding fathers who dismissed this false construct of subjects and serfs governed by a Sovereign ... all chanting in unison "God Save the King". The declaration of independence took the exact opposite stance ... declaring to King George that each individual was a "sovereign" in his own right, equals to him, and not subservient, and not subject to his whims or arbitrary good nature as their ruler.
Of course King George considered these colonists as ungrateful, insolent traitorous fools, possessing the gaul to declare themselves his equal. And what selfish fools, indeed. How dare they be so full of themselves to claim the divine right to rule themselves.
Last edited by CaseyB; 08-31-2012 at 01:29 PM..
Reason: copyright
Paul Ryan's mentor Ayn Rand believed Selfishness was a virtue. I don't believe she had any children, but I wonder what she would have told her children in elementary school about sharing.
He read a book by her, but we're not allowed to talk about Obama's mentors that he actually spent time with and wrote about?
Actually, you couldn't have it any more backwards ... really ... right as rain you are not, even though you are absolutely convinced that you are. And I'm not just picking on you here, as you seem to represent the consensus opinion .... I just chose to respond to this particular post to address the points.
It's clear that you have either not read Rand's material, or the material is beyond your grasp, intellectually, because she herself addresses your particular confusion, specifically. So I'll try to condense it, and demonstrate your error in understanding in different language.
To start with ... Rand's complementary philosophies of "objectivism" and "virtues of selfishness" are in fact the very essence of the values of our country, as envisioned by the founders and defined in the US Constitution. Perfectly compatible. Your confusion here is understandable because so many haven't a clue about what those values really are ... hence the crap hole of degradation and lack of morality and ethics that we have now, that was once a great nation of integrity. Take a poll, and you will find that the majority of the deluded, uneducated public believe that they actually live in a democracy, if you care to challenge my contentions? Yet in spite of popular opinion, we are not a democracy, but are a Constitutional Republic. And this is where the rubber meets the road.
Our constitution strenuously emphasizes "individual rights and liberty". In fact, one could safely say that it is preoccupied with it. It focuses on limiting the powers of government (government being a collective of the people), while protecting the individual from that "collective" trampling his individual rights, which are held sacred. Even our Declaration of Independence opens early with the concept that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Correct? Are you with me so far?
Now tell me ... are these not the the principles which are the embodiment of "selfishness" expressed clearly ... i.e., the concern for ones individual self interests .... or is it the altruistic values of self-less-ness for which you claim is the only legitimate path for for a decent society? The correct answer is "self interests" are preeminent, according to the philosophy of the founders of our nation.
The confusion you suffer stems from an emotional, reactionary mindset that has been programmed into your psyche long ago, establishing this unbreakable link between "selfish" and "evil", so anyone that tries to suggest the opposite ... or contend that there is a link between selfishness and virtue is immediately dismissed. But logically, this makes no sense at all. It's a complete illusion (or delusion) to think this way. As an example, when you get hungry and choose to make a sandwich and eat it .. is the act evil? Do you pay your electric bill out of compassion for the best interests of the power company's profits, or do you do it out of self interests ... i.e., to avoid having your electricity turned off? I could list thousands of similar activities that prove that you and everyone else alive act selfishly in almost everything you do on a daily basis. Are you acting in an evil manner constantly? Of course not. Eating a sandwich and paying your electric bill on time is OBVIOUSLY not evil ... but it is in your own best interests to do so ... and therefore an act of "selfishness". So, can you at least agree that selfishness is not ALWAYS an act of evil or even a bad thing? Try. It's important to the larger point.
By the same token, altruistic actions are automatically considered to be good, by most people. And this too is an emotional response based on psychological conditioning. We are programmed to believe that the selfless act of doing things for the benefit of others is the most high minded, positive expression of behavior, ALWAYS. But is it really? Well, it's a trick question. You really cannot answer the question logically or legitimately. The reality is, whether you are acting selfishly or selflessly, this has no bearing at all on whether the action itself is good or bad. The motive for someone's actions do not define the act. Only the act itself, defines good or bad. Do you get this?
Let's use another analogy to illustrate this point ... let's say some crack addict robs a liquor store, so that he can buy more crack. Most of us would agree that this was a bad act .. and also selfish. But did the selfish nature of the act define the act as bad? Let's take the same scenario, only this time, replace the crack addict with a guy who has never broken a law .... an otherwise decent fellow who has never been in trouble and never been violent or stolen from anyone. He was laid off from his job ... can't find a new one ... money has run out and his pregnant wife and his two small children are at home, with not a crumb of food in the fridge. Out of pure desperation and love for his family, and for the sole purpose of getting some money to feed his hungry children ... he robs the liquor store. Is that OK? Is it OK to rob the store because he did it to feed his children? One could say that act was indeed selfless .. since he's risking going to prison for a long time if he's caught .... and he wasn't doing this for himself or his benefit ... he was doing it for his hungry innocent children. No .. the reasons or motives have no bearing at all on the fact that robing a liquor store is bad. Consequently (if you're still with me), eating a sandwich when you are hungry is selfish, but not at all evil, while robbing a liquor store, even if it's only out of the selfless desire to buy some milk for your hungry children is not good.
This is just the starting point and foundation to Ayn Rand's philosophical "virtues of selfishness". What she explains far more eloquently that I can, though perhaps a bit over some peoples heads, is that this counter philosophy to "bad" selfishness ... "altruism" or good selfless action ... is the real evil because it demands that we replace morality with motive as the defining point for what is good and what is evil. It is the essence of "collectivism" and of the philosophy that the ends justify the means, thereby opening the door wide to rationalizing almost any action, no matter how evil or immoral that action might be, under the guise of good intentions and out of concern for the majority best interests. And isn't this the most common tactic and philosophy used by government? "We're doing this for your own good"? "You must comply with this requirement for the greater good of all"? "We have to go to war and bomb that country because they are oppressing their people". How about this ... "We have to go to war because it is in the best interests of the American people if Saddam Hussein is removed from power" ?
Hitler used this "collectivist" mindset to justify his actions too. Hitler actually believed he was acting in the best interests of the German people that he loved, by creating a powerful, dominant Germany that would never again suffer the consequences of the aftermath of WW I. Therefore, he justified his evil actions as necessary for the greater good, thereby using motive to define his actions as good, while Millions of Germans agreed with him. Ultimately, it led to self destruction.
Ayn Rand's contentions are that society requires a code of ethics and morality which defines good and bad, and that this code should govern individual behavior. The individual agreeing to abide that code is then free to act according to his own best interests as he should do, rather than wait and hope that someone else's selfless actions provides for his needs.
This really is the only formula for which freedom and liberty can survive, and is the soul of the American spirit. This philosophy of individual freedom (selfishness) governed by ethics and morality is the foundational philosophy of our Constitutional Republic, where individual liberty is paramount, guaranteed and protected by law.
This nonsense about selfless behavior focused on serving others without regard for one's own self interests is a big deception. It's designed to convince you to embrace the idea that it's good to be a lifelong servant, and evil to pursue your own interests and happiness. And that's no accident. The government wants you to be it's servant .... which is the opposite of our founding fathers, who believed that the government should be the servant of the people.
To thine own self be true.
Great post. I don't think most of the far left thinking people have an attention span long enough to read it. I also think they are on here criticizing Ayn Rand when they also haven't read any of her books for the same reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
