Let’s put it this way. Blind or unenlightened self-interest is where you think it’s okay to climb over anyone you want to get what you want. Ends Justify the Means. Enlightened self-interest is where you realize there are others who have a right to their own interests as well. You can’t just climb over them. You can negotiate freely so that both of you arrive at a solution that’s amenable to both of you. The difficult part of this is that the world isn’t so clean cut. As far as your traffic example is concerned, you’re twisting words. By living in a certain community you agree to abide by it’s rules. If you don’t like the rules, you negotiate their change, for example by voting. One problem with understanding her philosophy is that people, even smart ones like you, hear “selfishness” and proceed to fly off the handle with all kinds of goofy exagerations. I think Ayn Rand would have been better off if she called it the Non-religious Golden Rule. The idea behind this is compulsion. The thing she’s most against. So compulsion of the individual to act a certain way, whether by the government, organized religion, another person, etc.
I think Ayn Rand would have been better off if she called it the Non-religious Golden Rule.But she didn't call it that. Probably because her ideas didn't fit any known version of that rule. Worse, people would have recognized that term and tried to map her words onto it. They wouldn't fit. She needed to hide her bad ideas in her own made up language. One of the worst violations she made of discussing philosophy was she didn't refer to other philosophers. She didn't show what she was building on or compare and contrast herself to existing philosophies. Except some vague critique of socialism.
One problem with understanding her philosophy is that people, even smart ones like you, hear "selfishness" and proceed to fly off the handle with all kinds of goofy exaggerations. .Jesus f'n christ look at the global political trajectory since 2000s, if you want to ignore the stuff that came before. Now we are getting ready to fire nuclear weapons at each other and most the country is just blindly going along with the ride. And given how America seems incapable of deescalating these pissing matches, it's amazingly frightening. First we to go with the Shock'Awe and it's done nothing but fuk us. Now forces intend to privative our war in Afghanistan, while our idiot Russian obligate president is hoping divert attention by screaming “Fire and Fury" and you know the trump is shallow enough to do it, and the sheople will go along. It's monstrous. Cuthbert can you do a more specific job of Randian apologetics's. For instance her novels, er fairytales, have been taken as a guide for justifying Profits Uber Alles and all the profound harms that's inflicted on our society since the Reagan years. Now we are literally driving our biosphere and human society into the ground, but we want nothing more than attacking all perceived enemies. Crazy. Oh, but there's no crisis, as they say crisis what crisis. Stick around it'll reach you before you know it.
George Orwell: A Life in Pictures Full Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6txpumkY5I&tExcellent biography of the man. His comments on the domesticated English being emasculated and incapable standing up to deception and corruption of demagogues . It's quite insightful. Has a lot to say about today's situation here in America.
One problem with understanding her philosophy is that people, even smart ones like you, hear "selfishness" and proceed to fly off the handle with all kinds of goofy exaggerations. .Jesus f'n christ look at the global political trajectory since 2000s, if you want to ignore the stuff that came before. Now we are getting ready to fire nuclear weapons at each other and most the country is just blindly going along with the ride. And given how America seems incapable of deescalating these pissing matches, it's amazingly frightening. First we to go with the Shock'Awe and it's done nothing but fuk us. Now forces intend to privative our war in Afghanistan, while our idiot Russian obligate president is hoping divert attention by screaming “Fire and Fury" and you know the trump is shallow enough to do it, and the sheople will go along. It's monstrous. Cuthbert can you do a more specific job of Randian apologetics's. For instance her novels, er fairytales, have been taken as a guide for justifying Profits Uber Alles and all the profound harms that's inflicted on our society since the Reagan years. Now we are literally driving our biosphere and human society into the ground, but we want nothing more than attacking all perceived enemies. Crazy. Oh, but there's no crisis, as they say crisis what crisis. Stick around it'll reach you before you know it.I would say her ideas have been misused and misunderstood by those who have caused these things. Just like many of Jesus' ideas have been misunderstood by Christians throughout the ages to cause harm. (And no I'm not comparing the two, just giving an example.) Let me add though that I'm just trying to help you understand her ideas. I don't necessarily agree with them. Just like if you explained Nazism to me I shouldn't think you're a Nazi.
I would say her ideas have been misused and misunderstood by those who have caused these things. Just like many of Jesus' ideas have been misunderstood by Christians throughout the ages to cause harm. (And no I'm not comparing the two, just giving an example.) Let me add though that I'm just trying to help you understand her ideas. I don't necessarily agree with them. Just like if you explained Nazism to me I shouldn't think you're a Nazi.That they are easily abused is the point. Just like with Jesus. It's not Matthew 25 that is the problem, well, except the eternal fire part, but not the feed the hungry part, the problem is the 4th century armies that burned anyone who didn't preach their particular version of the creed. Rand opens herself up to this because of what I said before, she didn't compare herself to others or allow for discussion of what was weak in her thesis. She just wrote some books, and if you read only those books, they sound like there might be something there. With Jesus, at least you can pretend your following him for the good of all mankind, with Rand, it's for the good of yourself. I picked up a friend's copy of "White Trash", a history of class in America and skimmed a bit of it this weekend. Franklin, despite all the good he did, was trying to figure out what to do with all the stupid lazy people that he needed to do the grunt work, like clearing forest and stuff. But our laws have focused more on the equality and rights side of what he advocated. Franklin and the other founders started a conversation, knowing they would be found to be wrong on some parts. With Rand, her focus is on keeping whatever you get, through inheritance or laws that allow you to exploit laborers, doesn't matter, if you got it legally, it's yours forever. There's nothing left after you strip away the non-compassionate greedy stuff.
I would say her ideas have been misused and misunderstood by those who have caused these things. Just like many of Jesus' ideas have been misunderstood by Christians throughout the ages to cause harm. (And no I'm not comparing the two, just giving an example.) Let me add though that I'm just trying to help you understand her ideas. I don't necessarily agree with them. Just like if you explained Nazism to me I shouldn't think you're a Nazi.Hmmm, then start explaining. I offered an exposing quote - please explain why you think I'm misreading her words?