Quote:
Isbskins said:
If you hold objectivism to be good philosophy, and you agree with it's tenents, then you do not value "sacrifice for others" be it voluntary or no.
|
I say:
That is not true. Firstly, I am not an objectivist in the "gospel" sense, as I am my own man and I have my own beliefs. Secondly, you miss an important point. The reason man is charitable, is to GAIN something. That something is payment for the charity, though often times it has NOTHING to do with what is being given, or to whom. That payment is the feeling given from charity to the person who donates to a cause of their choice, towards fellow men who truly need it for a multitude of reasons. I have always given to needs I found virtuous, assuming I had the means.
Quote:
Isbskins said:
If you volunteer to sacrifice, you are abandoning one of it's major points. Allow me to quote the one and only Ayn Rand:
"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
That, by the way, is a very subjective statement. Do not demand of existentialism what your own philosophy does not demand of itself. Or do you now wish to back away from Ayn and objectivism?
|
I say:
Of course not, as I know what I value. I don't give to those that can "earn" for themselves, nor do I attempt to further mire those in honest need by no fault of their own.
I didn't claim to be a poster boy of any party, or any ideolgy, to the letter, and it is wrong of you to assume otherwise. I simply recognize Rands contribution to the core ideology of Liberty.
The statement you quoted, I believe, is exactly correct. Man can not find "satisfaction" if he doesn't love himself enough to acknowlege honestly, and to provide himself with what he desires, in other words, no amount of money can buy personal satisfaction, it is the labor of love that one finds for satisfaction.
For example:
A rich man, born rich, never HAVING to labor doesn't understand why he can't get satisfaction from doling away all of his
previously earned millions of his family that he received on their death to charities of his choice. The reason for this lack of "satisfaction" is not because he is not helping many, but because he is neglecting the self, which wants to toil for the benefit of others to give from the heart, not from the wallet. The act of giving is not noble, the act of giving of one's self is noble if it is of free will.
I don't think you understand Rands intention of defining things in many ways, from the extreme to the timid. One quote does not objectivism make.
I think her point is, if you can't be honest with yourself, how can you ever be truly happy? Some men LIVE to donate their time, and if that is what it takes to appease their ideals, so be it. No man should be forced to. Hence, free will.
I am no pigeon, so don't try to hole me.