And another thing... what do you think the role of caring looks like to an objectivist?

topic posted Fri, December 16, 2005 - 12:24 PM by  Passion
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
My view - you can be unyielding in your expectation of truth without being uncaring. You can face deception, call it what it is and still feel sadness and understanding (without giving in) for the paths that people choose to take. I think this is an important distinction, because I think, often people fail to see this issue beyond a black and white rendering.
posted by:
Passion
Phoenix
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • My view - I can be unyielding in my expectation of Truth without losing my compassion. I must be absolutely clear about my expectations yet not hold consiquences over the head of another if my expectations are not met. I must always realize that there is such thing as an honest mistake and the actions of the mistakee are not always malicious. I must realize that I am not perfect and cannot throw stones at anothers learning process, my desire is to help and assist in better learning not to punish and avenge.
    • What of he/she who transcends emotional reaction, and makes the decisions guided only by Truth and Reason. No conflict, no tears or false accolades - just the virtue living for the greater good.
      • I cannot say that I transend emotional reaction, I am a Water sign we live by emotion and intutition. But I can say that I have learned to have my emotional reaction without inflicting raw and uncut upon my Other.

        I have conflict, I cry tears, and occasionally I freak the fuck out but sometimes the Truth lies somewhere in between living for the greater good and living for MY greatest good.

        It's all about what works well for you. Isn't that some of what Objectivism is about?
        • > the Truth lies somewhere in between living for the greater good and living for MY greatest good.

          Does it really? I mentioned in another post, that I really love egoism. It's a fascinating lens through which to look at the world. In my opinion, if you really hold an 'egoist' (not egoTist) perspective, it's not just about doing things for yourself for your own reasons but it is an understanding that EVERYONE does everything they do for themselves and for their own reasons.

          Pick any example behavior and it can be fit into this perspective. That doesn't mean they are objectivist, but that everyone's behavior can be seen from the view of egoism. Even a 'self-less person' - if you ask them why they are that way, they will explain to you that it's some moral imperative or duty. But if you are objectivist, you on the other hand don't see selflessness as a duty. So what makes the selfless person see it the other way? Their own moral code (i.e. their own choice to see it that way - they do it for their own reason - to live up to their own idea of a moral right)

          It's easy to tear down anyone that uses the "greater good" as a motivation or predicator for an action or behavior (especially when the notion of 'duty' is either specified or implicit) by asking them to define what the 'greater good' is in the first place. They'll claim "consensus" but even that's hard to nail down in our society. (Liberal/Conservative/moderate/republican/democrat/liberarian/socialist/etc)

          >It's all about what works well for you. Isn't that some of what Objectivism is about?

          Couldn't have said it more succinctly. The only problem arises when someone else tries to enforce what works for them ON you. Something that unfortunately happens all too often in our society.

          Tre'

          P.S. Water sign? Just for the record, 'mysticism' (astrology) is some of what Objectivism is not about. Not criticizing mind you, just commenting. Of course, if you have any quantifiable data on people born at given times of the year, I wouldn't be one to discount it before seeing the datum.
          • You have your beliefs, I have mine. Leave it as that because it's not worth arguing about.
            • As I said it was just an observation. I don't usually see too much discussion on 'belief's in rationalistic discussions is all.

              Tre`
              • this is good. I think you guys are getting down to the core of this posting actually. Its meandering towards a good solid place.

                In my understanding it is illogical to ignore one's emotions. In this day and age we can count one's emotions to be actual chemical reactions, a bodily intellegence, a real reaction and processing of the scenarios in which we live. There for to ignore those emotions, to over-ride those physical responses is to literally cut ourselves short of our complete human potential. It is a peripheal vision, a sense, that we in the western world may have to eagerly cut ourselves away from to achieve a 'clarity' of mind.

                On that basis... our beliefs, our spiritual or mystical relationships to our lives and the world around us do come from a very internal, a very relevant, and very factual place.

                tre, the danger, that I think you are alluding to, and that I agree with, is that often we allow these internal and relevant emotions and arising beliefs/spiritual relations to be translated by external sources (such as clergy, books, etc) - that becomes irrational. Established and organized religions work to funnel a mass resevoir of human emotional and spiritual intellegence into a very closed set up simple mental categories. The same way politicians and looting authorities work to simplify the massive currents of world change into simple absolute concepts for unthinking individuals to accept and meander off into the darkness with.

                It is my conclusion that spiritual and emotional intellegence is a very real thing, and despite all other contrary attempts can only be discovered, harnessed, and successfully expressed through individual pursuit.

                I also conclude that 'Compassion' and 'caring' come about sincerely through excercised individuals whitnessing and relating to other excercising individuals in pursuit of that same or an equal ideal. Much the same way Rand was able to express Francisco's internal angst to see Rearden plodding along perpindicular to him in quest, but equal in valor. So we feel compassion often at the sight of a poverty stricken individual who's path we know is not ours to walk.

                And with that, I will untie my cape, step down off the soap box, and go get myself a glass of juice.

                happy festivus.

Recent topics in "objectivist singles"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Any females near me? Christopher 0 June 2, 2008
Rape 23 January 7, 2008
Alternative Singles Night TEX CAT 0 September 26, 2007
Dating or being single? Be positive and you will win your love! Unsubscribed 0 May 19, 2007
inspire me to my greater self, baby. zigo 11 May 6, 2006