login about faq

As an Objectivist you pledge to always serve your self, is that always a fun way to be, to never serve the other, or not always the other but relationship defined by self and the other (so there is no living dictator). Maybe there is pleasure in self-denial for the other? Maybe you are not complete without the other, and maybe your happiness is defined by your relationship with the other, whatever that other something someone is? Is that not what love is? Pleasure in communion with the other whatever that other something someone is? To feel that you have loved?

[off-topic material elided]

What was Rand's relationship with the other, did she hate the other whatever that other something someone is, so much she would to the effect say, "never help the other, only as it serves self should you help the other"?

Is Rand advocating self-worship?

[off-topic material elided]

Rational self-interest is too clunky a term, is there no short simpler yet comprehensive synonym?

[off-topic material elided]

asked Dec 29 '11 at 12:11

Adeikov's gravatar image

Adeikov
70333

edited Dec 29 '11 at 13:24

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦
1002425618

"The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values,” “desires,” “self-interest” and ethics." Ayn Rand

Most, if not all of your objections have been raised and dealt with either by Rand herself or others who have studied Objectivism for many years.

(Dec 29 '11 at 13:13) Donovan Donovan's gravatar image

Adeikov, the purpose of this site is for people to ask questions of Objectivists -- not to deliver lessons to Objectivists, or to hold extended discussions with Objectivists. There are plenty of other sites those activities, and attempting to engage in them here will dilute the distinctive value of this site and make its owner (me) grouchy for that reason.

(Dec 29 '11 at 13:15) Greg Perkins ♦♦ Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Sorry, I could condense it, if you wish.

I will try to serve its purpose better.

(Dec 29 '11 at 13:21) Adeikov Adeikov's gravatar image

The problem is not brevity (though that is preferable); it is that you are teaching a lesson rather than asking a question. This is not the place for that activity. I have tried to remove the lesson part for you this time.

(Dec 29 '11 at 13:25) Greg Perkins ♦♦ Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

If you know of such sites that would allow a free-flow discussion with Objectivists, or any you yourself favour, tell me.

I might be more informed when I ask a question, sometimes I need to turn a subject around in head a few times before I feel a master of it and not the other way, sometimes I take multiple positions just to know a subject, so I can use it later in a debate with better skill or use it my own philosophy and be readily able to defend it with knowledge. That is a strength for me.

(Dec 29 '11 at 13:41) Adeikov Adeikov's gravatar image
showing 2 of 5 show all

Rational self-interest is a redundancy. It is redundant necessarily so, since so many individuals believe that self-interest only views the immediacy of the moment, or view self-interest as an out of context primary.

Some people might take self-interest to mean that individuals who advocate it mean to serve themselves to the exclusion of everyone and everything else, regardless of the downstream consequences of such a policy. Libertarians have asked if it is not in ones self-interest to rob a bank if one needs money, treating theft as if it were a rational occupation, or ignoring the consequence of going to jail and losing ones freedom is in the self-interest of being a bank robber.

Some people might take self-interest to mean self-worship, rather than a recognition that the self is ones highest value, and that to achieve other values might and do require things outside the self in order to accomplish. This is not a worship of the self, rather an identification and recognition of the fact that the actions one chooses to take have consequences, and tailoring ones actions in such a way as to try and bring about the desired consequences

Because of these and potentially other misapplications of self-interest, Objectivism often prefaces self-interest with rational to distinguish it from examples of irrational self-interest which seek to rationalize positions such as hedonism, or why more controls are considered necessary to force people to act according a government may consider to be in the citizens "self-interest".

Love is the emotional response one experiences in response to the things one values. In the case of another person, love is the emotional response one experiences in response to another who share similar values in life. The completeness felt has been expressed in Rand's words along the lines that they value their loved one so much, they would be willing to lay down their life in order to keep themselves together, as to go on without them - life would lose its meaning.

answered Dec 29 '11 at 13:20

dream_weaver's gravatar image

dream_weaver ♦
663214

Would you ever get sick of being a servant to your self?

Being a servant implies that you are doing something involuntarily. As such, you should never be a servant to yourself.

As an Objectivist you pledge to always serve your self

No. An Objectivist strives to act in their rational self interest. That's not the same as "serving" yourself.

is that always a fun way to be, to never serve the other, or not always the other but relationship defined by self and the other (so there is no living dictator)

While Objectivist is against serving others (placing yourself in a position of being a servant; a slave), it is not against helping others. Charity is fine, as long as you do it because you want to; it's only bad when you do it because you feel you must, such as out of a sense of duty. Then it becomes a form of sacrifice, of self-destruction.

Maybe there is pleasure in self-denial for the other?

If there's pleasure in it, then it's not self-denial. You're getting something out of it; it's not a sacrifice.

Maybe you are not complete without the other, and maybe your happiness is defined by your relationship with the other, whatever that other something someone is? Is that not what love is?

I submit that it's impossible to be happy by defining your relationship based on another. How can one have self-esteem in such a condition? And how can one be truly happy without self-esteem?

Love is not defining yourself in terms of another. Love is a form of valuing another.

answered Jan 08 '12 at 05:42

Rick's gravatar image

Rick ♦
53910

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×36
×21
×15

Asked: Dec 29 '11 at 12:11

Seen: 1,170 times

Last updated: Jan 08 '12 at 05:42