Fishteacher73 Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 A few years ago I got sucked into a binge of reading Ayn Rand (Anthem, The Foutainhead, We the Living, Atlals Shrugged). In these books among other things was forged a philosophical doctrine called objectivism (Not just in the books, but this has been extrapolated unto itself and is one philosophy debated in many college texts). The idea behind this philosophy is that every action is a selfish action. There is no true altrueistic motive. The indvidual only does items that provided personal gain(whether it was praise, a feeling of accomplishment, etc.). I have yet to see an example that can not be reduced to an alterier selfish motive. Does this work by pre-determining the "motive" to be selfish, so it can therfore always be reduced to such? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Taking a view of acceptance, I would say the reason/cause is that the only thing we can truly know is self. "I". Everything else is suspect.. Then it's only natural (logical) that selfishness drives it all. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Hmmmmmmm sounds like schopenhauer. In that he believed that there is no independant will within people it's all part of a universal single will. So then all beneficial actions to others will ultimately benefit the induvidual, thus all motives behind actions being possibly traced to selfishness> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 That's quite a generalization.-How can a parents love for a child be reduced to selfish motive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 I devoured Ayn Rand when I was in high school. The characters were great, the conflict was genuine, but I hated the endings. It took a little while to sink in, but I decided she and the people who became disciples of her had no soul. Seemed so sad to me. I think the existentialists have more feeling and connection with emotions. Objectivism to me is kind of like trying to be like a Vulcan on Star Trek. Ultimately, its hard to see how conducting one's life solely by seeking one's own self-interest can be at all satisfying, and if you believe in Karma, its worth oodles of dings on your record. When I was in b-school, one of my profs had written a book called "The Invisible War" (John J. McDonough), which basically explained management and personal interactions as being mostly explained by the fact that in business--which is in most cases impersonal--you can pretty much figure out what people are doing by recognizing that they almost always seek their own self interest. The main point of the book was the positive goal of recoginizing this fact, and figuring out how to find "alignments" between your goals and others' to find mutually agreeable solutions to problems. Jack never really mentioned Objectivism, because his evidence and solutions were based on purely empirical sources, but the parallels are obvious. It can be hard to argue with an Ayn Rand fan about the central argument of Objectivism that "all actions are selfish", because the basic argument boils down to "all altruistic behavior can be explained as being self serving." The Ellsworth Toohey character in The Fountainhead is a classic because his outward demeanor is always altruistic but he's shown as being evil. In Ayn Rand's world, Mother Teresa was a self-serving publicity hound. My bottom line is that I personally avoid Objectivism as a personal philosophy, but it sure does (unfortunately) explain a whole lot about human behavior.... Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 In my opinion, every action is a "selfish" act.Since for every action, one has to make an "agreement" with himself/herself to perform this action, and this "agreement" is considered as "self-satisfaction" which is something for oneself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 In my opinion, every action is a "selfish" act.Since for every action, one has to make an "agreement" with himself/herself to perform this action, and this "agreement" is considered as "self-satisfaction" which is something for oneself.Yep! That's Objectivism! Note that Ayn Rand highly promoted the notion of taking responsibility for ones own actions, so it can't be argued that this is entirely negative. As a side note, its been argued that a large dose of Objectivism was used in defining Scientology (uh oh, that'll probably get me in trouble!). Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 If all our actions are for ourselves we do not have real free will or we have extremely limited free will. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted February 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 That's quite a generalization.-How can a parents love for a child be reduced to selfish motive? That is one of the primordial selfish acts. Any species that has a bit of parental care does so to help propagate the bloodline. Not out of "love". This emotion has evolved in humans to help produce stonger family bonds and better parental care to produce the most viable offspring. A re-inforcement of the base nature of existince...If you don't breed, you don't count. (As humans, we have stepped away a bit from this by creating this artificial environment called society, and reproductive actions are not the sole cornerstone of this "ecosystem", but to be valuable in today's society one musty make it so at least others can be morve viable because of your actions. Indirectly adding to the viablity of the species). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 i used to believe this. selfish genes and motives and such. all behavior of an entity is motivated within the entity as a combination of genetic predisposition and conditioning and every act is commited either in search of pleasure or avoidance of pain. when a man dives into a wall of fire to save someone elses life this is not some self-sacrificial drive but a learned response due to previous learning of the connection with not acting and regret or guilt. for me the problem with this reasoning also exists in post-kierkegaard existentialism. i just cannot shake the feeling that the idea of isolated entities stems more from conditioning and that these philosophies only make sense when assuming that a questionable idea is a fact, namely that we are all seperate beings and everything is not interconnected. i cannot prove that this 'feeling' has any factual validity behind it but then let the scientists measure the horses teeth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 That is one of the primordial selfish acts. Any species that has a bit of parental care does so to help propagate the bloodline. Not out of "love". This emotion has evolved in humans to help produce stonger family bonds and better parental care to produce the most viable offspring. yeah, offspring that lives. denial of intimacy to ones offspring can be fatal and i think therefore it has more to do with our lives than what you are suggesting. love is an emotional connection that is not at all specific to family bonds. one can love friends and children from another's blood. but the evolution of love is an interesting subject in and of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 A few years ago I got sucked into a binge of reading Ayn Rand (Anthem, The Foutainhead, We the Living, Atlals Shrugged). In these books among other things was forged a philosophical doctrine called objectivism (Not just in the books, but this has been extrapolated unto itself and is one philosophy debated in many college texts). The idea behind this philosophy is that every action is a selfish action. There is no true altrueistic motive. The indvidual only does items that provided personal gain(whether it was praise, a feeling of accomplishment, etc.). I have yet to see an example that can not be reduced to an alterier selfish motive. Does this work by pre-determining the "motive" to be selfish, so it can therfore always be reduced to such?I found this thread while I was looking for a place to write what I recently learned about Objecbivism, without starting up something again. A couple of days ago, I discovered objectivismonline.net which listed some interesting discussion topics so I joined and posted a few innocuous (for me) comments and questions. (I have read A. Rand's books in the past and took the trouble to read the forum rules.) Well, my posts were almost immediately rejected, even deleted, and I was asked to leave. (Bummer0 After further pondering why, I realized that to be an "objectivist" you have to adhere completely and exclusively to the doctrine. It is a "closed philosophy." I think that's why it has its reputation as a cult. Just ranting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 A few years ago I got sucked into a binge of reading Ayn Rand (Anthem, The Foutainhead, We the Living, Atlals Shrugged). In these books among other things was forged a philosophical doctrine called objectivism (Not just in the books, but this has been extrapolated unto itself and is one philosophy debated in many college texts). The idea behind this philosophy is that every action is a selfish action. There is no true altrueistic motive. The indvidual only does items that provided personal gain(whether it was praise, a feeling of accomplishment, etc.). I have yet to see an example that can not be reduced to an alterier selfish motive. Does this work by pre-determining the "motive" to be selfish, so it can therfore always be reduced to such?I can think of a case where some person is in a situation (though at the moment safe) and viewsanother person they don't know in peril. If he/she chooses to attempt to save the other persons life,it is almost surely they will die in process even if they do succeed. They then choose to attempt it.Their death is immenent if attempted. Chances are very slim. What self intrest would they have ?No one there know them and they are doing this anonomously. What value is a life to sacrifice so ? Maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Well, my posts were almost immediately rejected, even deleted, and I was asked to leave. (Bummer0 After further pondering why, I realized that to be an "objectivist" you have to adhere completely and exclusively to the doctrine. It is a "closed philosophy." I think that's why it has its reputation as a cult. Just ranting.Its a total cult. Read my posts above. Ms. Rand was really popular in my crowd in high school, but we all seemed to walk away from it assuming she was holding objectivism up to ridicule, rather than promoting it. Its only when you read some of her biographical info that you start to understand that she actually thought that the Tooheys of the world should be idolized! :)  They're fun to razz tho. Kinda like trying to convert a Moonie, but they tend to be a bit more intellectual so it can be a challenge.... Cheers,Buffy Yeah, I'm back. Watch out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 welcome back buffy! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 objectivism somehow neglects any views of psychology that human behavior is environmentally conditioned. Selfish desires are highly likely influenced by an objectivistic worldview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gubba Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 G"day folks, last time I risked the flames of danger I can't remember having much time to think. Linda and Buffy you may be amused to know that years ago one of our prime ministers down under was more than an ardent fan of the redoubtable miss rand. Don't remember seeing much to laugh about it at the time but the years have hopefully mellowed me somewhat. cheers gub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.