Posted by kid_A on August 3, 2001, at 12:52:29
In reply to The Virtue of Selfishness..., posted by Kingfish on August 2, 2001, at 8:47:42
> the sacredness of the individual versus the good of the whole.
Have you been reading Ayn Rand? Hmm, you can go two different ways here. On one hand you can look at it through Rand's perspective (In no way do I think her perspecitve is entirely complete, but I use her as a reference to create a starting point for this side of the argument), regardless, her perspective is that you are either an individual, or you are a slave. If you follow your own voice and act out of your own interests than you are an individual, if you copy, if you emulate, if you follow, then you are a slave, you are a number, you are nothing but a lowly doppleganger to your imitated.
I don't think that this says we should all go out and do whatever we feel, but I do think it does tout individual thinking. I dont think that we should blindly accept dogma as truth, and I think we should even question Rand's vision of what individuality is. Its not the deed that makes you the slave, its your mindset, if you are a pacifist you must be one by your own design, and not because you are following dogma that tells you that pacifism is a noble cause, even though you are a pacifist, you are a slave to someone elses ideology.
Now then on the oposite side, take for example (and I'll use one citation for the opposite side of the coin as well), take C.S. Lewis's novel Till we Have Faces. This book was really meant to show the dichotomy of our actions that are in our own interest, and our actions that are for god, but I think that it makes a good blueprint for the contrast between actions for self, and actions for others.
One of the main thrusts of the novel is the idea of love, how do we define love? Love to us sometimes seems real but rather we are acting in our own behalf in the guise of love. If we love someone because they make us happy, do we really love them, or do we just love to be made happy and that person becomes the idea of happiness personafied... When we love, do we give of ourselves completely or do we expect something in return... No doubt that we always expect a little something in return, like requited love, but true love to me, means that you should give of yourself completely, with no expectations as to the returns, and really you can apply this to any action whatsoever weather it be eros or platonic in nature, whatever you give of yourself must be given freely, with no need for reward or recognition. The need for reward and the need for recognition stems from our desire to soothe the restless ego, to make ourselves into our actions, a good deed is only the deed itself, and shouldnt be done for reward, it goes without saying that we should all do good deeds, and it is natural to feel a sense of accomplishment when you have helped someone, and even nicer to feel that they appreciate your hard work, but its important I feel, to try to distance yourself from the emotion of reward. If there is truly such a thing as right and wrong, then the good deed should be natural for us to choose, otherwise we are choosing to do wrong, even when we have taken no action... The noble default should not be looked on as worthy of emotional reward...
just my two cents...
poster:kid_A
thread:8577
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010731/msgs/8652.html