Thought provoking?

The article refers to the concept of altruism as a strategy and/or a tactic of and/or by the weak. I’m debating whether an argument that altruism cannot be “utilized” independently of the consent of the strong shows that it is actually a tactic/strategy of the strong.

not exciting or awesome?

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

we might just as well put these alongside the Alinsky
and Cloward/Piven strategies, which they complement,
to call these the set of Progressive strategies at work
right now in the U.S. -- j

Well said, Dhagan. And the Christians eager to be sacrificing themselves (softened up by being steeped in the story of Jesus sacrificing himself for humanity) don't consider that they are thereby making others be the recipients of a sacrifice. If everyone always and only makes sacrifices, who will benefit? And if it's OK for some to accept others' sacrifices, why is it not OK for you to? Why does everything have to run as > or < instead of = ? Yet some do pay lip service to the golden mean, maybe without understanding it.

That altruism meme dies hard; it is both pernicious and tenacious.

"People seem to have trouble with the idea of meeting in the middle: neither sacrificing themselves for others nor sacrificing others to themselves."
This really resonated with me today. So many of a christian background that I deal with on a daily basis have the hardest time with this concept. It's refreshing to see others see the danger of sacrifice as I do. In explaining this to one man in particular, (when almost reciting the oath verbatum...) He asked me, 'how can we divy resources or maintain community if we do not sacrifice something of ourselves to the benefit of another?' It was beyond him to see how mutual self-interest is the motor which can drive joint ventures, encourage fairness in our dealings and promote the most loyal and respectful types of relationships.. all the while, never damaging one another in the process. Once you experience such a just way of living, it changes your perspective, permanently.

Wasn't he the one who did it on a small scale, encouraging people to look up to him and this discouraging them from following their dreams-- not for any ostensible purpose but that Toohey couldn't stand people following their dreams.

Gail Wynand had the same behavior, but he overcame it.

What a bunch of mystical nonsense.

Altruism as "compassion" meets government force:
Police Arrest 90-Year-Old and Two Pastors for Feeding Homeless People:
http://nationofchange.us8.list-manage.co...

When does voluntary charity morph into mandatory self-sacrifice? Where does self-interested contribution to the wider societal welfare become legislated (involuntary) expropriation? This is a fascinating case of concept and context evolution when government steps in. He is not to feed the homeless "in public". He does it in civil disobedience and gets repeatedly arrested. He also runs a culinary school to teach some of these homeless skills so they can get jobs. I would amend the definition of "altruism" as being involuntary subservience. Of course, there are subtle psychological techniques to shame, cajole and influence people voluntarily to accept self-denial and subservience. Stephen Hicks describes several, and Toohey is a master practitioner.

People seem to have trouble with the idea of meeting in the middle: neither sacrificing themselves for others nor sacrificing others to themselves.

"But I don't think of you, Mr. Toohey."

Your contextual definitions are accurate.

My definitions, for the sake of philosophic argument...

Soul = one's id. One's mental identity. I believe it is the sum of one's memories, experiences...sense of self. It does define one's character. It need be nothing more. No mysticism required

Altruism: Putting other's needs above self in their hierarchy making one's self subservient... a slave.

One should give freely to others because it pleases, provides return, good will, or even if it is just a good feeling; not out of compulsion, a sense of less worth, self diminution, or guilt, resulting in self deprivation. This is not equality. It is undeserved self immolation.

two things. 1. her uncomfortability could have been irrational 2. lack of knowledge rather than the unknowable. We know much about the brain, but certainly we are learning new things every day.
I think you want to make a religious point here, which you are not making directly.

but we are not redefining terms. Altruism is clearly defined here. It's like discussing the word "obtuse." In a mathematical textbook, the word obtuse will spark a different discussion than if I said a statement was obtuse. But there is inherent shared meaning between the two. You want to take the word altruism, as defined by its originator, and change it to mean something more mystical. Go right ahead, but you can't claim that I am the one re-defining its meaning or practice.

Just this: does anyone remember her saying, "After all, Nathan, the theory of evolution is only an hypothesis"? Nathaniel Branden said of that, "There was something about the prospect of human beings descending from a common stock with simians that made her--uncomfortable."

Of course it did. But she never considered the alternative.

this is a philosophical post, about Rand, and therefore the context is clear. The philosophical definition of altruism is defined here by Rand and by it's originator. Anything else would be changing the context of the discussion.

It seems that your final statement boils down to Rand was not a physiologist. What is your point?

The discussed concept of control of the soul caused me to remember and seek out this scene from the only worthwhile Conan The Barbarian to watch. Tulsa Doom speaks of control of the flesh but that's just what is on the surface of the cult he controls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgN1sLcA...

Perhaps I am better trained than most. I've spent a lifetime having nothing but pride-of-achievement to sustain me--no "yes men" to tell me I'm good when I'm not. I would not waste time, for instance, with "Ike the Genius" (No Skin Off Your A**).

But Robert Stadler illustrates the flip side of that. He grew to hate people and sought dominion over them by brute force. His only real quarrel with Project X was that he didn't build it, and he didn't think far-enough ahead to sieze it. Someone else did, and we know how that worked out.

But about the soul: even Rand resisted any attempt to reduce soul or mind to material chemistry only. That left her with a dilemma she never resolved.

"We cannot discuss the soul unless we are willing to define it and understand how it got there."
Have you read The Fountainhead? If so, you have taken her out of context. Every word has a context and in this context, it is not a Judeo-Christian, mystical, metaphysical "soul." It represents a person's motivation, drive, their reason for wanting to exist-pointedly not mystical. Toohey, as presented, had an interesting take on religion. He saw it as manipulative. But after reflection, he decided socialism was a far better way of manipulating people. But that is not the subject of the post.
"You cannot even discuss what is behind altruism without understanding this.."
Actually the term was first defined by Comte, and is the antonym for "egoism." "vivre pour autrui" ("live for others")-this is the origin of the word "altruism." I completely understand the concept and its origin. It was actually accepted by secular humanists of the 19th century who were inspired by the publication of "Origins of Species" and formed groups. Basically he worked to divorce the mysticism from religion, and in my opinion, his definition does a better job of getting down to the point than religion.

No it is exactly this. It's stunning how many people behave this way. And they look at you like you 're a kook when you ask questions. only an alien would question and make decisions-well decisions about important stuff. They 're on top of things like what time the game is on