| | I have been chomping at the bit to write something on this thread for a while now. So finally, here goes:
WHAT A FUCKING GREAT ARTICLE!
I use the phrase of taking my Objectivist glasses off and looking, then putting them back on. Well look here:
If I encounter one duck, and it quacks--well, maybe it's a freak. If I look at several ducks, and they all quack--well, maybe their quacking is due to a disease. If I continue by examining dozens of local ducks, and they all quack--well, maybe somebody taught them to quack. But when I look into the matter thoroughly, and find that ducks in their hundreds and thousands and millions, domestic and wild, from all over the world, all quack--the most compelling hypothesis is that quacking is in the biological nature of ducks.
THAT is the only way I have been able to derive practical value out of Objectivism. It must stand up to the reality test.
If we look at Altruism like that, instead of from the perspective of Ayn Rand's overkill (which I believe was necessary at the time she wrote), we will no longer call empathy "Altruism." We will see that empathy is simply an emotion and not a philosophical principle for living. Empathy is a true part of our psychological makeup and - I suspect - results in lower self-esteem if repressed - at the very least it makes people really grumpy. Altruism, as Rand properly points out, is an evil philosophy. (The way Altruism hijacks this emotion actually would be another good article.)
Human beings are social animals. Even Objectivists. All you have to do is look around. No need to derive that from "non-initiation of force" or "axiomatic concepts" or whatever. Just look. There is an awful lot of quacking going on in the world.
I am sorry that Ron is no longer with us. I would have loved to have known him.
Michael
|
|
