PJW wrote:
The problem with humanism, as it arose in the mid-nineteenth century, literarily espoused by both Dickens and Thackeray, is its inherent contradiction.
The only difference between humanism and socialism is who benefits. In socialism, no one benefits. In humanism, someone benefits. Why? Under socialism, no one, no individual, exists, therefore privation is the norm. Under humanism, an individual might exist, but he only benefits under the beneficence, and then directly, of an external agency set up for his, and his only, benefit. There is no philanthropic underpinning. Therefore, for all of Scrooge's wasting his wealth, there was no value-adding, resulting in no furthering of society for wealth, once spent, is gone, whereas when invested, under, I don't know, Objectivism, creates more wealth for the endowment it represents.
Tiny Tim is the problem with the world. We love him, not for himself, but for his ability to emotionally manipulate us.
And the problem with Randian Objectivism is that it glorifies animalistic selfishness, and denies the interconnectivity of all people. Society is an implicit contract; in exchange for certain rights and privileges, you've got responsibilities toward your fellow society-dwellers (such as, you know, respecting
their rights). You can try as hard as you like, but take it from a hardened, cynical Aspie with misanthropic tendencies such as myself-- realistically, nothing you do, short of moving to the Gobi Desert or building your own rocket and blasting yourself to Mars, will
ever sever your ties to other people or your societal obligations completely.
Maybe it sounds appealing to you, to try to live without or in spite of others. I don't know. I, for one, believe it is a cold and hollow way to live.
Randian Objectivism promotes -rational- selfishness. And Rand was far from original.
R. Hillel once said:
Hillel lived about 2200 years ago.
Rand also was a major fan of Aristotle and embraced much of Aristotle's thinking in the Nicomachian Ethics.
I am not a "Randian" Objectivist because I think the movement that Rand started devolved into a kind of cult. I am not peachy keen on cults. But I accept the basic idea that things are what they are and that physical reality exists independent of of wishes, whims and feelings.
08 Mar 2011, 10:21 pm
