Altruism, Christianity, Rand, etc. - A Continuation

Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Prometheus18
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,866

24 Oct 2018, 3:46 pm

This is a continuation of a discussion which began in the L&D section between Mr. AngelRho and myself (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=369445) Feel free to join in:


Quote:
Good vs Evil is relative to a man’s consistency regarding his self-interest. For Rand, there is no such thing as suffering because suffering and pain are meaningless. Evil is a problem that lacks meaning and is thus irrelevant. So what does Rand REALLY believe about evil? If Rand says that most people are evil, I’d say she hasn’t gone far enough.

She stated that suffering is impossible for the RATIONAL/ good (same thing in her eyes) man, but as already pointed out, she considered very few people worthy of such an accolade, including many of her own one-time closest friends and associates.

Quote:
Re altruism: “Love thy neighbor” is anything but altruism.

Again, if you think that, then what you understand by the term “altruism” is different from what the rest of the population understands by it. Not to say that you’re wrong and they’re right, however; semantics is one of the few disciplines that are – almost entirely – subjective.

Quote:
Go back and read it in context. Jesus framed reciprocity as resulting from sinful human nature.

That’s the first thing you’ve said so far that’s COMPLETELY silly (including the dating stuff). Jesus wasn’t Adam Smith, and such an eighteenth century concept would have been almost wholly meaningless to a Palestinian in the first few decades of the Christian era, assuming they even had the language for it.

Quote:
He compares the willingness of sinful parents to provide for their children to that of a good God who would also provide for those who ask. “Love thy neighbor” isn’t about being good for goodness’ sake. It’s about getting what you want from people. The best way to do that is by serving their needs.

The same as above applies; Jesus wasn’t Dale Carnegie either.

Quote:
But it is NOT altruistic. Altruism expects nothing in return. It is unquestioning, unqualified sacrifice of the self. In practice, people tend to feel cheated when promised their needs are met on an even playing field, and yet they discover some people are “more equal than others.” People living under Soviet control were often suspicious and resentful towards each other under state-mandated altruism. If you go back to the book of Acts, you see what happened at a time when the early church practiced altruism. It didn’t end well. In America, some early colonists practiced altruism. It failed and a colony was almost lost.

Again, your understanding of the term “altruism” is taken almost directly from Rand, and is therefore inconsistent with that of the rest of the population. Altruistic acts may, and also may not, harm the doer, according to Merriam Webster.

There was nothing altruistic about the Soviet Union; its rhetoric was framed in the language of Christian altruism, at least to begin with, to ensure that the peasants would stand for it, but it was never genuinely altruistic and even the veneer of altruism was thrown away quite quickly. The people of the Soviet Union were told to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective (altruism in its genuinely perverse sense), but in truth they were sacrificing themselves for the good of the Communist Party elite. The same thing applies now in China, North Korea and other tyrannies.

Early Christianity, although we know almost nothing about it, certainly seems to have been altruistic in nature. It ended badly not because of any internal faults, but because the Roman bourgeoisie saw it as a threat and so sought to eradicate it. The same was true of the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Anabaptists the Christian Socialists, the Kibbutzim, the anti-war movements of the sixties and every other movement that genuinely had regard for the wellbeing of the dispossessed.

Quote:
Becoming a Christian isn’t altruistic act, either. It is a means to a personal, individual end. Either one expects an eternal reward or seeks to avoid the flames of hell.

I wouldn’t know, being a – somewhat reluctant – atheist, but if it is true, it’s an extremely disappointing indictment of the Christian religion, or of its adherents.

Quote:
There is none who is good, no, not one.

“Good” is an infinite continuum, and so by definition that has to be true, at least if we’re to avoid the transcendental. There have been somewhat good men in history, however – though very few.

Quote:
Axioms are problematic because all I have to do is declare something is an axiom and I can defeat any argument I dislike. It’s stupid to go about arguing God exists/God doesn’t exist because despite God’s existence, there is no argument that one whose wishful thinking prevents him from admitting to a belief in God can’t return with a counterargument, and there are no refutations of God that can’t be refuted. If you don’t want to believe, you’re not going to. It’s more interesting to explore motives behind taking one position or another.

Axioms are somewhat better defined than that. An axiom might be defined as “a statement which cannot be denied without leading to absurdity”; clearly, this does away with any epistemological privilege a crude thinker like Rand, or anyone else for that matter, might try to claim for himself.



Quote:
I only bring up Rand and Christ in contrast because reciprocity is the cornerstone to my views on relationships. This is less Rand and more Dale Carnegie. Less philosophy, more motivational writing/speaking. Getting a bf or gf will depend on how you act on your values. THAT is the Rand bit.

You’re probably right – certainly on the Rand front. Though just as you have little interest in philosophy, I have little interest in crude self-help writers like Mr Carnegie. Being an adult, I have even less interest in playing boyfriends and girlfriends like an angsty high school student; if I ever do get round to it, I want a WIFE, not a girlfriend.

Quote:
The problem it seems to me with some aspies here (not calling names, not referring to any specific person) is we sometimes value the benefits of a mate over the mate herself, or himself. We see a gf as a mom, or a maid, or a cook, or a sex slave. We don’t see her as a person with values of her own or needs to be met. Loving a person entails reciprocity, among other things.

I completely agree with you there.


By the way, as an interesting aside, there isn’t actually any reason whatever to believe that Jesus ever even existed. His mythology is, as is well known, a re-hash of the mythology of the Egyptian god Horus. There are also inconsistencies and outright fabrications in the three synoptic gospels. On top of this, there is no contemporary record of Jesus whatever. The only significant mention he gets at all in the literature of the day is a scant one in Josephus which was almost certainly a fabrication. This doesn’t take away from Jesus’ value as a moral figure, of course, but is certainly a huge blow to Christian attempts to build faith on rational grounds.



Piobaire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,347
Location: Smackass Gap, NC

24 Oct 2018, 3:56 pm

"Satanism is merely Ayn Rand's philosophy with ritual and ceremony added."
Anton LaVey



Me Here
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 6 Oct 2018
Age: 57
Posts: 39
Location: Grtr Manchester

24 Oct 2018, 4:40 pm

Viktor Frankl is very interesting on suffering, if people have read his stuff.



Prometheus18
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,866

24 Oct 2018, 4:46 pm

Yes, the link between Miss Rand and Mr LaVey is an interesting one. I'd forgotten about that.


As for Frankl, I know of him, but haven't read any of his work. You're from Greater Manchester. Not Bury, by any chance? I lived there for a while, just outside Bolton.



Me Here
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 6 Oct 2018
Age: 57
Posts: 39
Location: Grtr Manchester

24 Oct 2018, 4:53 pm

Prometheus18 wrote:
Yes, the link between Miss Rand and Mr LaVey is an interesting one. I'd forgotten about that.


As for Frankl, I know of him, but haven't read any of his work. You're from Greater Manchester. Not Bury, by any chance? I lived there for a while, just outside Bolton.


Nope nearer the centre, lol.

The first book is exceptional if you have any Depression type stuff. He was in a Concentration Camp (or three) and the suffering was worth it to meet his wife afterwards ie worth staying alive for. ie suffering has meaning in the person's meaning of life...



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

24 Oct 2018, 8:27 pm

Me Here wrote:
The first book is exceptional if you have any Depression type stuff. He was in a Concentration Camp (or three) and the suffering was worth it to meet his wife afterwards ie worth staying alive for. ie suffering has meaning in the person's meaning of life...

Someone did recommend to me Man's Search for Meaning and I read it in maybe 2014 or 2015. It was an interesting book and I think mostly it was in how his perspectives changed and what he found the most salient about that situation. In particular I thought the bit on 'Throw out the medical books - it's all lies! Our teeth and gums are in great shape!' was an unusual trinket of knowledge.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

24 Oct 2018, 8:32 pm

Prometheus18 wrote:
“Good” is an infinite continuum, and so by definition that has to be true, at least if we’re to avoid the transcendental. There have been somewhat good men in history, however – though very few.

A particular thought hit me at work today, ie. when someone self dialogs about whether they're a good person. If someone else heard it, or heard someone talking about themselves openly as a good person, in most environments people would if not verbally at least emotionally and nonverbally respond with 'You entitled sh^&!'.

It seems like if you haven't done not just something but a whole lot of somethings that earn dog-eats-dog accolades you're just seen as weak, and then wretched and awful on top of that if your both kind AND weak.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 Oct 2018, 10:06 pm

Don’t get me started on why I don’t post here much anymore. I’ll make appearances occasionally and throw the dogs some bones, but don’t expect much. PART of the reason is I’ve come to feel many of my views are obvious enough to me they don’t require my defense of them. Putting those ideas out there imply that I consider them debatable. Why would I try to prove something by accepting the opposing premise? It makes makes no sense.

But I am NOT a Rand apologist. There are a number of her views I find attractive, some I feel are dead wrong, and still others I feel the jury is still out.

So I’ll toss this bone out there:

I used to break out in hives over motivational lit and speeches. I never understood the appeal, never understood how people claim any kind of success from buying this crap. I started getting into motivational media after studying educational leadership, so for a while 7 Habits was my Bible. That was my springboard into that whole world. I more readily embrace it now because I understand what the fuss is all about.

On a basic level, those people are right. The dating advice I give is frequently drawn from writings by notable business leaders and motivators. They’ve built companies and made millions by forging relationships. They’re worth listening to because they practice the principles they write and speak about. If you meet these people at conferences, of which I’ve been to a few (being a teacher sucks sometimes), you discover that half the point is learning to emulate these people in order to lead your own people. I am an educator; it is in my best interest to absorb all I can in the area of leadership. Call it an occupational hazard.

People hate on motivators for a few reasons. Writers hate them because they make a lot of money. Plus they are targeting a specific audience and not concerned with fine literature. In romantic relationships, I stress for men to not ignore women’s media, including paperback romances. Same reason. Philosphers hate them because they are absurd. The trouble is that people are irrational in how they relate to each other, so dealing with people on a purely rational basis is no good. And don’t get me started on the absurdity of philosophy and science...but that’s another topic. “Regular Joes” hate them because they seem out of touch, plus these kinds of people find themselves unable to achieve consistent results from following motivators.

People fail to gain results for two reasons: Lack of consistency in practicing their strategies, hence yielding inconsistent results, which I think is self-explanatory; and failure to understand the purpose of motivational media.

The point of speeches and lit is to MOTIVATE. What happens is people get fired up at conferences or inspired by a book they read. So they start a Youtube channel, a blog, a podcast, a facebook page, whatever. Maybe they sell some MLM products, make a little cash, whatever. And when things get tough, which they will, they forget why they started in the first place. You can’t benefit from the psychological effects of motivational material if you don’t read the blogs, hear the podcasts, read new books, re-read old books, study in-depth the lives of successful people, and keep the good warm and fuzzy vibes going that induced you to take your first steps into pursuing your interests.

Personally, I avoid MLM’s for that very reason. Amway has made more money on motivational material for selling their products than the actual products themselves. And I personally know someone who was being bullied by someone in her Younique upline.

I think if you recognize the psychological value of motivational and inspirational media, it can be a big help. It’s just to make you feel good so you’ll DO STUFF. That is ALL there is to it. There’s nothing wrong with it if you understand that. What’s wrong is when people twist this stuff into a panacea and find themselves disappointed when results don’t come when or how you expect.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,721
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Oct 2018, 1:30 am

Loving our neighbor has absolutely nothing to do with getting something in return - at least not in material wealth. Rather, loving other people is our way to reciprocate God's love and grace.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 Oct 2018, 11:17 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Loving our neighbor has absolutely nothing to do with getting something in return - at least not in material wealth. Rather, loving other people is our way to reciprocate God's love and grace.

Why? Bear in mind I'm a believer and not going anywhere away from my faith. But that leaves the very important question of why anyone should care about God's love and grace. "Love" and "grace" won't keep a roof over my head, the electricity and water running, and food in my belly. Maybe for the last 12 years I've been looking up at the sky saying, "Hey, God! I'm still here! I could use a little help, please! God???" and my situation has been on a slow, steady, downhill slide into despair. Oh, but God supplies spiritual needs. REALLY? So God's purpose for my life is to end it all right now and get it over with? Cuz I'm getting kinda tired, here.

Sorry, I just don't see God as someone who would leave us as hopeless as all that. Yes, the heavenly, spiritual reward is greater than what we can conceive on an earthly, material level. There's no question about that. But I just can't buy into the idea that this is all there is on earth. If there's nothing in return, there is no point, no reason, no logic behind giving of yourself. If I smile at someone and get nothing more than a smile in return, my reward is knowing that I made someone, at least for a moment, feel good. I'm just powerful enough a person that I gave someone a moment's pleasure, and that makes me feel good about myself. I have a problem with an electrical outlet, so I call an electrician. And because I have the money to pay parts and labor fees, I have power over that guy to keep my appliances running. That makes me feel good. And I don't have to wait until I'm dead to get that.

I possess knowledge and teaching credentials. So I possess the power to manipulate a school--nay, a church I don't even belong to--into hiring me to teach children how to play musical instruments in return for MONEY that gives me power to do...pretty much anything I want within reason and within my financial capacity. I possess talent, therefore I have the power to play piano at church every Sunday, in return for money that, well, see above. Through reciprocal exchanges, those who ask for my service get to enjoy the fruits of their labor and I get to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Not necessarily money, not exclusively always material things, but almost ALWAYS joy. I have full confidence that I'm laying up treasure in heaven, but my heavenly reward does not preclude provision for my needs in the here-and-now.

Jesus didn't teach reciprocity as some sort of esoteric, mystical thing that we can only hang our eternal hopes on. Reciprocity has IMMEDIATE, temporal consequences. This is very clearly laid out in the Gospels (Matthew 7). Ask, and you will receive. Knock and the door will open. "Don't ask for anything in return," which I believe is in Luke's account. Well, of course you don't ask for anything in return. You JUST ASK. "Yessir, I'll be glad to help you with ____. But that means I have a problem. I can't do ____ because of ____. Is there any way you can ____? Yes? Awesome! Consider it done, sir."

Jesus' formulation of "love thy neighbor," which is further expanded into reciprocity (do unto others), was intended to supply the needs of all for the benefit of all as a consequence. It carries no expectation, since expectation implies that the person you serve is enslaved to you. Elsewhere Jesus tells us if someone sues you, settle it BEFORE a judge gets involved. If someone does you a favor, don't wait before restoring the relational balance. If there's no way to do it and your friend calls on you, don't refuse.

Now, you are correct in the sense that it has the EFFECT of reciprocating God's love and grace. The greatest commandment is love God with all your being. If you value God, you value God's commandments. God commands us to take care of each other.

And finally, consider the deeper meaning of "...as thyself." This is where Rand's idea of rational self-interest and Jesus' reciprocity collide and reinforce each other, which leads me to believe Rand had a poor understanding of Christianity as it was originally intended. OF COURSE we are self-interested, if for no other reason than we care primarily for our own survival and secondarily in taking pleasure from material existence. This is the source of objective morality, and you can't escape your own nature whether you like Rand and/or Jesus or hate them.

You cannot love God or anyone else if you don't first love yourself.

Love in the Biblical sense was action, not emotion. Yes, there WAS affection in the Bible, but the writers were more concerned with physical, tangible manifestations of love rather than the sentimental sources of it. If you love your body, you keep it from harm. OF COURSE you don't go getting drunk all the time. OF COURSE you avoid hard, addictive drugs. OF COURSE you eat good food. And SOMETIMES you do things that allow you to safely experience pleasure. If you love yourself, you do all these things and avoid things that bring you harm. OF COURSE you seek those things from others that benefit yourself, because there are many things you are incapable of doing alone. I cannot sufficiently grow my own food, so I go to the grocery. I don't care about the farmers who grew the food or milked the cows. I don't care about the cashier who takes my money. I only know that I have to go there in order to survive.

But I PAY for my food rather than steal it. By paying for my food, I am keeping the farmers, processors, distributors, the cashier, and a whole chain of command in business by providing for THEIR needs the same way they allow me to provide for my own (by darkening the doors of the store, by working two jobs and taking extra gigs to acquire the money, etc.). If I do not love myself--if I do not act in MY OWN SELF-INTEREST--then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY I can love others. It's not that I have no feelings for the cashier deep in my heart. It's not that I give no thoughts at all to some midwestern dairy farmer. It's that if I don't love myself first, which takes the form of seeing to my own needs, then I have absolutely NO ABILITY WHATSOEVER to do what has to be done to love others, which takes the form of exchanging money for goods and services.

If I am capable of keeping myself in good health and refuse to do so, why should, for example, a woman (I know, Dorothy, I'm not in L&D anymore) take any interest or notice in me? If I'm incapable of taking care of myself, why should she expect that I would care for her any better?

It is this, I believe, that is the present source of sin in the world--failure to love God, failure to take care of yourself and subsequently others. That's why morality is OBJECTIVE and measurable. It's self-evident, even. The Old Testament does a better job of laying this out than I ever could, but it doesn't take much brain power to figure it out. I'd say that refusing pleasure is sinful. Why? Because it is God who created a world that offers pleasures. We were created to enjoy creation. Pleasure is sinful when it violates the order through which it was given. Alcohol, for instance, is pleasurable. However, alcohol is destructive. You don't sin by avoiding alcohol. You DO sin when you impose an irrational view of alcohol as sinful upon someone who takes pleasure in it and yet does not destroy himself by it. Drinking a beer right before bedtime will not consign me to the flames or make me less of a Christian than the next guy; but judging me for it without fully understanding what or why I'm doing it DOES make YOU less of a Christian. There are other pleasures that constitute a dissatisfaction with the world as God created it, hence taking pleasure in those kinds of things is by nature sinful. Yet another example: Food provides sustenance AND pleasure. Occasional overeating does no harm. Habitually overeating and taking pleasure in gluttony, however, DOES result in self-harm. Therefore, it is sinful. And not just for the consequences to self, but also because it is a form of worshiping creation over the Creator. Literal idol worship is the same thing. I do not count preoccupation with material possessions such as iPhones as idol worship in the Biblical sense. But it does move mankind away from focussing on God. Use of technology should glorify God just like everything else, not shove him to the recesses of our lives. It may not be idolatry, but it's bad enough.

Anyway, look...the biggest problem with reading altruism into "Love thy neighbor" is we forget "as thyself." You cannot "deny yourself daily" if you lack personal values to "deny yourself" for. I love God. He is MY God. I have ownership of my God. If God had nothing to offer me, I wouldn't give myself up to God for His pleasure. If God were Russel's teapot and had no care whatsoever about me, if I had to work to somehow, maybe, get lucky and fall within the Teapot's graces, I'd probably just say "to hell with the Teapot God" and live like an atheist. But no..*I*, and "I" is the important word here, value God. Because "I" want God, God lies square within my PERSONAL interest. It is a selfish desire, a self-interest, a value. I cannot deny that. I cannot fully "deny myself" because giving up my self completely would mean giving up God as well. I cannot be an altruist because I cannot let God go.

Rand's denial of God, I suspect, is really a reaction to the idea that those God chose to be His are those whose willing, voluntary desire is forsaking much of what the world has to offer in order to focus on God's calling. Rand cannot comprehend that people could really take pleasure in that, that they could be completely physically and spiritually fed by that. Moreover, she cannot comprehend that arriving at that conclusion is a logical pathway. I suspect two things about Rand at this point: She was either in denial, or she claimed atheism as a means of reinforcing a veneer of intellectualism. I often say that I LIKE Rand; I am NOT a dedicated objectivist or Randian sycophant. The irony of objectivism is that by thinking for one's self, one can come to the very conclusions she opposed.

I should probably brush up on Rand a little more. I understand perfectly well the objectivist problem with God and religion--essentially, it is a means of control and NOTHING ELSE. I understand perfectly well where this is coming from. However, organized religion doesn't control me. It influences me, yes, to the extent (and no more) that I allow it to. But I make no bones about my disagreements with "The Church," Protestant movements, and even theologians I've gotten to know on a personal level. Once you take away the idea of religion as purely a means of control serving no other purpose, as soon as you remove altruism from the Christian equation, Rand's atheism is merely a personal choice that reflects her personal biases, the same personal biases that lead all of us to either claim God or reject God. I'm more worried about Rand's followers. Rand's philosophy was dynamic, steadily evolving throughout her lifetime. All her followers could do was go along with her every whim, the irony being that individualists ought to have minds of their own, and yet HER disciples weren't allowed to think for themselves. Unless I'm missing something, that's the impression I get from Objectivists. To be honest, I have more respect for Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley than Ayn Rand. My classroom approach is heavily influenced by Branden's psychology, though I regret I lack the mastery of it that I'd like.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,721
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Oct 2018, 12:01 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Loving our neighbor has absolutely nothing to do with getting something in return - at least not in material wealth. Rather, loving other people is our way to reciprocate God's love and grace.

Why? Bear in mind I'm a believer and not going anywhere away from my faith. But that leaves the very important question of why anyone should care about God's love and grace. "Love" and "grace" won't keep a roof over my head, the electricity and water running, and food in my belly. Maybe for the last 12 years I've been looking up at the sky saying, "Hey, God! I'm still here! I could use a little help, please! God???" and my situation has been on a slow, steady, downhill slide into despair. Oh, but God supplies spiritual needs. REALLY? So God's purpose for my life is to end it all right now and get it over with? Cuz I'm getting kinda tired, here.

Sorry, I just don't see God as someone who would leave us as hopeless as all that. Yes, the heavenly, spiritual reward is greater than what we can conceive on an earthly, material level. There's no question about that. But I just can't buy into the idea that this is all there is on earth. If there's nothing in return, there is no point, no reason, no logic behind giving of yourself. If I smile at someone and get nothing more than a smile in return, my reward is knowing that I made someone, at least for a moment, feel good. I'm just powerful enough a person that I gave someone a moment's pleasure, and that makes me feel good about myself. I have a problem with an electrical outlet, so I call an electrician. And because I have the money to pay parts and labor fees, I have power over that guy to keep my appliances running. That makes me feel good. And I don't have to wait until I'm dead to get that.

I possess knowledge and teaching credentials. So I possess the power to manipulate a school--nay, a church I don't even belong to--into hiring me to teach children how to play musical instruments in return for MONEY that gives me power to do...pretty much anything I want within reason and within my financial capacity. I possess talent, therefore I have the power to play piano at church every Sunday, in return for money that, well, see above. Through reciprocal exchanges, those who ask for my service get to enjoy the fruits of their labor and I get to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Not necessarily money, not exclusively always material things, but almost ALWAYS joy. I have full confidence that I'm laying up treasure in heaven, but my heavenly reward does not preclude provision for my needs in the here-and-now.

Jesus didn't teach reciprocity as some sort of esoteric, mystical thing that we can only hang our eternal hopes on. Reciprocity has IMMEDIATE, temporal consequences. This is very clearly laid out in the Gospels (Matthew 7). Ask, and you will receive. Knock and the door will open. "Don't ask for anything in return," which I believe is in Luke's account. Well, of course you don't ask for anything in return. You JUST ASK. "Yessir, I'll be glad to help you with ____. But that means I have a problem. I can't do ____ because of ____. Is there any way you can ____? Yes? Awesome! Consider it done, sir."

Jesus' formulation of "love thy neighbor," which is further expanded into reciprocity (do unto others), was intended to supply the needs of all for the benefit of all as a consequence. It carries no expectation, since expectation implies that the person you serve is enslaved to you. Elsewhere Jesus tells us if someone sues you, settle it BEFORE a judge gets involved. If someone does you a favor, don't wait before restoring the relational balance. If there's no way to do it and your friend calls on you, don't refuse.

Now, you are correct in the sense that it has the EFFECT of reciprocating God's love and grace. The greatest commandment is love God with all your being. If you value God, you value God's commandments. God commands us to take care of each other.

And finally, consider the deeper meaning of "...as thyself." This is where Rand's idea of rational self-interest and Jesus' reciprocity collide and reinforce each other, which leads me to believe Rand had a poor understanding of Christianity as it was originally intended. OF COURSE we are self-interested, if for no other reason than we care primarily for our own survival and secondarily in taking pleasure from material existence. This is the source of objective morality, and you can't escape your own nature whether you like Rand and/or Jesus or hate them.

You cannot love God or anyone else if you don't first love yourself.

Love in the Biblical sense was action, not emotion. Yes, there WAS affection in the Bible, but the writers were more concerned with physical, tangible manifestations of love rather than the sentimental sources of it. If you love your body, you keep it from harm. OF COURSE you don't go getting drunk all the time. OF COURSE you avoid hard, addictive drugs. OF COURSE you eat good food. And SOMETIMES you do things that allow you to safely experience pleasure. If you love yourself, you do all these things and avoid things that bring you harm. OF COURSE you seek those things from others that benefit yourself, because there are many things you are incapable of doing alone. I cannot sufficiently grow my own food, so I go to the grocery. I don't care about the farmers who grew the food or milked the cows. I don't care about the cashier who takes my money. I only know that I have to go there in order to survive.

But I PAY for my food rather than steal it. By paying for my food, I am keeping the farmers, processors, distributors, the cashier, and a whole chain of command in business by providing for THEIR needs the same way they allow me to provide for my own (by darkening the doors of the store, by working two jobs and taking extra gigs to acquire the money, etc.). If I do not love myself--if I do not act in MY OWN SELF-INTEREST--then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY I can love others. It's not that I have no feelings for the cashier deep in my heart. It's not that I give no thoughts at all to some midwestern dairy farmer. It's that if I don't love myself first, which takes the form of seeing to my own needs, then I have absolutely NO ABILITY WHATSOEVER to do what has to be done to love others, which takes the form of exchanging money for goods and services.

If I am capable of keeping myself in good health and refuse to do so, why should, for example, a woman (I know, Dorothy, I'm not in L&D anymore) take any interest or notice in me? If I'm incapable of taking care of myself, why should she expect that I would care for her any better?

It is this, I believe, that is the present source of sin in the world--failure to love God, failure to take care of yourself and subsequently others. That's why morality is OBJECTIVE and measurable. It's self-evident, even. The Old Testament does a better job of laying this out than I ever could, but it doesn't take much brain power to figure it out. I'd say that refusing pleasure is sinful. Why? Because it is God who created a world that offers pleasures. We were created to enjoy creation. Pleasure is sinful when it violates the order through which it was given. Alcohol, for instance, is pleasurable. However, alcohol is destructive. You don't sin by avoiding alcohol. You DO sin when you impose an irrational view of alcohol as sinful upon someone who takes pleasure in it and yet does not destroy himself by it. Drinking a beer right before bedtime will not consign me to the flames or make me less of a Christian than the next guy; but judging me for it without fully understanding what or why I'm doing it DOES make YOU less of a Christian. There are other pleasures that constitute a dissatisfaction with the world as God created it, hence taking pleasure in those kinds of things is by nature sinful. Yet another example: Food provides sustenance AND pleasure. Occasional overeating does no harm. Habitually overeating and taking pleasure in gluttony, however, DOES result in self-harm. Therefore, it is sinful. And not just for the consequences to self, but also because it is a form of worshiping creation over the Creator. Literal idol worship is the same thing. I do not count preoccupation with material possessions such as iPhones as idol worship in the Biblical sense. But it does move mankind away from focussing on God. Use of technology should glorify God just like everything else, not shove him to the recesses of our lives. It may not be idolatry, but it's bad enough.

Anyway, look...the biggest problem with reading altruism into "Love thy neighbor" is we forget "as thyself." You cannot "deny yourself daily" if you lack personal values to "deny yourself" for. I love God. He is MY God. I have ownership of my God. If God had nothing to offer me, I wouldn't give myself up to God for His pleasure. If God were Russel's teapot and had no care whatsoever about me, if I had to work to somehow, maybe, get lucky and fall within the Teapot's graces, I'd probably just say "to hell with the Teapot God" and live like an atheist. But no..*I*, and "I" is the important word here, value God. Because "I" want God, God lies square within my PERSONAL interest. It is a selfish desire, a self-interest, a value. I cannot deny that. I cannot fully "deny myself" because giving up my self completely would mean giving up God as well. I cannot be an altruist because I cannot let God go.

Rand's denial of God, I suspect, is really a reaction to the idea that those God chose to be His are those whose willing, voluntary desire is forsaking much of what the world has to offer in order to focus on God's calling. Rand cannot comprehend that people could really take pleasure in that, that they could be completely physically and spiritually fed by that. Moreover, she cannot comprehend that arriving at that conclusion is a logical pathway. I suspect two things about Rand at this point: She was either in denial, or she claimed atheism as a means of reinforcing a veneer of intellectualism. I often say that I LIKE Rand; I am NOT a dedicated objectivist or Randian sycophant. The irony of objectivism is that by thinking for one's self, one can come to the very conclusions she opposed.

I should probably brush up on Rand a little more. I understand perfectly well the objectivist problem with God and religion--essentially, it is a means of control and NOTHING ELSE. I understand perfectly well where this is coming from. However, organized religion doesn't control me. It influences me, yes, to the extent (and no more) that I allow it to. But I make no bones about my disagreements with "The Church," Protestant movements, and even theologians I've gotten to know on a personal level. Once you take away the idea of religion as purely a means of control serving no other purpose, as soon as you remove altruism from the Christian equation, Rand's atheism is merely a personal choice that reflects her personal biases, the same personal biases that lead all of us to either claim God or reject God. I'm more worried about Rand's followers. Rand's philosophy was dynamic, steadily evolving throughout her lifetime. All her followers could do was go along with her every whim, the irony being that individualists ought to have minds of their own, and yet HER disciples weren't allowed to think for themselves. Unless I'm missing something, that's the impression I get from Objectivists. To be honest, I have more respect for Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley than Ayn Rand. My classroom approach is heavily influenced by Branden's psychology, though I regret I lack the mastery of it that I'd like.


Sounds like the prosperity gospel to me, which isn't gospel at all.
Christ addressed the matter of material needs. And yes, he says we need only ask him, as found in the petition in the Lord's Prayer: "Give us this day our daily bread." He also assured us that the lilies of the field are more beautifully arrayed than Solomon in all his glory but neither spin nor toil, and cares for every sparrow, so why would we worry if God will care for us?
As far as God not telling us to reciprocate his love by loving hour neighbor: When I was hungry, you fed me. When I was in prison, you visited me. When I was grief stricken, you comforted me, etc, etc. Then when the righteous at his right hand asked, Lord, when did we ever do any of that for you? And he answered, "When you did this for the least of my brothers, you did it for me."
Incidentally, those on his left hand who hadn't done any of this for the sake of loving their neighbor alone were cast away. So yes, good works are a means of living God's love and grace given to us.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Me Here
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 6 Oct 2018
Age: 57
Posts: 39
Location: Grtr Manchester

25 Oct 2018, 4:27 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Me Here wrote:
The first book is exceptional if you have any Depression type stuff. He was in a Concentration Camp (or three) and the suffering was worth it to meet his wife afterwards ie worth staying alive for. ie suffering has meaning in the person's meaning of life...

Someone did recommend to me Man's Search for Meaning and I read it in maybe 2014 or 2015. It was an interesting book and I think mostly it was in how his perspectives changed and what he found the most salient about that situation. In particular I thought the bit on 'Throw out the medical books - it's all lies! Our teeth and gums are in great shape!' was an unusual trinket of knowledge.


I had bad Depression, or was kinda recovering when I read it, and was more on Depression as my own self-imposed confinement and the suffering thing and did get his "meaning of life" thing which is similar to what I had described as pillars (meaning) under a bridge (life). And his line about choice even there re suicide or continue to suffer reasonanted.



Prometheus18
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,866

25 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Don’t get me started on why I don’t post here much anymore. I’ll make appearances occasionally and throw the dogs some bones, but don’t expect much. PART of the reason is I’ve come to feel many of my views are obvious enough to me they don’t require my defense of them. Putting those ideas out there imply that I consider them debatable. Why would I try to prove something by accepting the opposing premise? It makes makes no sense.


Quote:

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.


John Stuart Mill

Quote:
On a basic level, those people are right. The dating advice I give is frequently drawn from writings by notable business leaders and motivators. They’ve built companies and made millions by forging relationships. They’re worth listening to because they practice the principles they write and speak about. If you meet these people at conferences, of which I’ve been to a few (being a teacher sucks sometimes), you discover that half the point is learning to emulate these people in order to lead your own people. I am an educator; it is in my best interest to absorb all I can in the area of leadership. Call it an occupational hazard.

I don't have anything against self-help books as such, in fact, I'm quite fond of a number of them. Bertrand Russell's Conquest of Happiness changed my life, Eckhart Tolle is deeply fascinating, a number of 19th century - and earlier - authors who could vaguely be considered to fall into the self-help category have deeply influenced me. I don't have anything against self-help books, just the sort of nonsense that preaches "success" at the expense of one's values and the good of the rest of society. Rubbish like Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People falls into this category because, at the very least, it proclaims as a virtue the manipulation of other people and, in consequence, the relinquishing of one's self-sufficiency, a GENUINE value. Anybody who tells you that leeching off of other people will bring happiness is, on top of being immoral, just plain wrong; as an autist, I can't believe you've lived forty years and still operate under the delusion that other people can be RELIED UPON to serve one's happiness, whether they're remunerated for it or not. Take care of YOURSELF rather than "influencing" OTHER people into taking care of you.

Quote:
The trouble is that people are irrational in how they relate to each other, so dealing with people on a purely rational basis is no good.

That’s sort of like a Papuan telling himself, “I know, having absorbed the moral code of the gospels from Jesuit missionaries, that cannibalism is wrong, but everyone around me practises it, so abstaining from it myself is no good.”

Quote:
It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society


Jiddu Krishnamurti



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Oct 2018, 10:07 am

Prometheus18 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Don’t get me started on why I don’t post here much anymore. I’ll make appearances occasionally and throw the dogs some bones, but don’t expect much. PART of the reason is I’ve come to feel many of my views are obvious enough to me they don’t require my defense of them. Putting those ideas out there imply that I consider them debatable. Why would I try to prove something by accepting the opposing premise? It makes makes no sense.


Quote:

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.


John Stuart Mill

Quote:
On a basic level, those people are right. The dating advice I give is frequently drawn from writings by notable business leaders and motivators. They’ve built companies and made millions by forging relationships. They’re worth listening to because they practice the principles they write and speak about. If you meet these people at conferences, of which I’ve been to a few (being a teacher sucks sometimes), you discover that half the point is learning to emulate these people in order to lead your own people. I am an educator; it is in my best interest to absorb all I can in the area of leadership. Call it an occupational hazard.

I don't have anything against self-help books as such, in fact, I'm quite fond of a number of them. Bertrand Russell's Conquest of Happiness changed my life, Eckhart Tolle is deeply fascinating, a number of 19th century - and earlier - authors who could vaguely be considered to fall into the self-help category have deeply influenced me. I don't have anything against self-help books, just the sort of nonsense that preaches "success" at the expense of one's values and the good of the rest of society. Rubbish like Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People falls into this category because, at the very least, it proclaims as a virtue the manipulation of other people and, in consequence, the relinquishing of one's self-sufficiency, a GENUINE value. Anybody who tells you that leeching off of other people will bring happiness is, on top of being immoral, just plain wrong; as an autist, I can't believe you've lived forty years and still operate under the delusion that other people can be RELIED UPON to serve one's happiness, whether they're remunerated for it or not. Take care of YOURSELF rather than "influencing" OTHER people into taking care of you.

Quote:
The trouble is that people are irrational in how they relate to each other, so dealing with people on a purely rational basis is no good.

That’s sort of like a Papuan telling himself, “I know, having absorbed the moral code of the gospels from Jesuit missionaries, that cannibalism is wrong, but everyone around me practises it, so abstaining from it myself is no good.”

Quote:
It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society


Jiddu Krishnamurti

Carnegie doesn’t promote leeching off people, though. It IS manipulative, but the problem is people seem to either be willfully unaware of being manipulated or they’re perfectly ok with it. I had an actual moocher on the phone with me this morning, no idea why my receptionist put her through, but she did the usual spiel of asking me about my program needs and proceeded to sell me on her scheme. I made sure I spoke quickly and concisely so as not to any more of her time than necessary. So, yeah, I was ready when she hit me with the hard sell and made the excuse that all fundraising had to go through channels beyond my control, which is true, but I WOULD get back to her as soon as I knew something.

I have no intention of doing that, for a number of reasons I won’t go into. But every word she said, every tactic...I recognize them because I’ve studied that and used those approaches myself. My biggest problem is the anxiety I experience dealing with strangers. But I succeed often because I’m patient and not under the constraints that salesmen are. So when I DO have to ask for help, I’m confident that I can.

The problem of self-sufficiency is it hamstrings your ability to act. I’m self-sufficient. But without other people, I’m limited only to what I alone can do. Servicing the needs of others is ultimately service to oneself. I can, for instance, write music and use digital libraries to give a convincing illusion of an actual orchestra. But I cannot give the experience of actual players on stage without those players. A computer can also do things human beings cannot, which, while it might sound cool, has the unfortunate effect of being non-idiomatic, unnatural, and artificial. Real human beings can show me what is idiomatic and within reach, plus they can give me ACTUAL rosin on strings in a room. I can produce an amazing RECORDING a lot cheaper than real musicians can, but it won’t deliver on live performance.

You need people. And like it or not, people exist in some state of dependence upon each other. I prefer interdependency, symbiosis over parasitosis. People working for mutual benefit.

I like the Carnegie book because it sheds a good light on how human minds work. It’s accurate. You need to accomplish a goal that requires the involvement of people? Practice the Golden Rule. HTWFAIP is all about reciprocity.

It’s also good if you enjoy stories about Abe Lincoln.



Prometheus18
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,866

26 Oct 2018, 3:20 pm

Quote:
Carnegie doesn’t promote leeching off people, though. It IS manipulative, but the problem is people seem to either be willfully unaware of being manipulated or they’re perfectly ok with it.

To have to manipulate others in order to gain what it is that one wants directly implies that they wouldn’t have consented to give that value if they had been aware of the act of manipulation. Manipulation implies deception. An honest man can convince others to do his bidding on the strength of solid facts. A weakling needs to deceive others into BELIEVING he has a value to offer, because the truth of his lack of values would rightly turn them away. I have no doubt, as I have even pointed out myself in this discussion, that the overwhelming majority of people are needy dependents who will do anything someone sufficiently confident asks them to do. That’s, sadly, the human condition; we’re a herd-like species. I even agree, a fortiori that some form of social control is necessary in the collective sense, as I have also said. But that the majority of people are too weak to be able to act independently – that people wish to be manipulated, which is no doubt true – doesn’t in itself NECESSARILY justify that manipulation. The manipulator has an enormous social responsibility which has always been a check on the abuse the power to manipulate in history; the manipulator in the form of the priest had his Gospels and Church law; the manipulator in the form of the educator had his sense of the need to inculcate moral values and to train the whole child; the manipulator in the form of the landed nobleman had his code of chivalry, and so on and so forth.

The fact is, that because someone can be persuaded that something is within his interests, it doesn’t make it true; the black slaves were told that slavery was their natural lot, and most of them no doubt believed it; women were told they were incapable of doing intellectual work, and most of them no doubt believed it. Your idea that because people want to be manipulated that manipulation is justified would be valid if men were generally rational actors, but they are not, and history attests to this. This is the fallacy of liberalism – it assumes that because someone WANTS something, it must be in his interests; the logical conclusion of this absurdity is Marquis de Sade, who was perhaps the only consistent liberal ever to have lived.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Oct 2018, 4:48 pm

Prometheus18 wrote:
Quote:
Carnegie doesn’t promote leeching off people, though. It IS manipulative, but the problem is people seem to either be willfully unaware of being manipulated or they’re perfectly ok with it.

To have to manipulate others in order to gain what it is that one wants directly implies that they wouldn’t have consented to give that value if they had been aware of the act of manipulation. Manipulation implies deception. An honest man can convince others to do his bidding on the strength of solid facts. A weakling needs to deceive others into BELIEVING he has a value to offer, because the truth of his lack of values would rightly turn them away. I have no doubt, as I have even pointed out myself in this discussion, that the overwhelming majority of people are needy dependents who will do anything someone sufficiently confident asks them to do. That’s, sadly, the human condition; we’re a herd-like species. I even agree, a fortiori that some form of social control is necessary in the collective sense, as I have also said. But that the majority of people are too weak to be able to act independently – that people wish to be manipulated, which is no doubt true – doesn’t in itself NECESSARILY justify that manipulation. The manipulator has an enormous social responsibility which has always been a check on the abuse the power to manipulate in history; the manipulator in the form of the priest had his Gospels and Church law; the manipulator in the form of the educator had his sense of the need to inculcate moral values and to train the whole child; the manipulator in the form of the landed nobleman had his code of chivalry, and so on and so forth.

The fact is, that because someone can be persuaded that something is within his interests, it doesn’t make it true; the black slaves were told that slavery was their natural lot, and most of them no doubt believed it; women were told they were incapable of doing intellectual work, and most of them no doubt believed it. Your idea that because people want to be manipulated that manipulation is justified would be valid if men were generally rational actors, but they are not, and history attests to this. This is the fallacy of liberalism – it assumes that because someone WANTS something, it must be in his interests; the logical conclusion of this absurdity is Marquis de Sade, who was perhaps the only consistent liberal ever to have lived.

The flaw in your argument is that manipulation SOMETIMES implies deception. One could be manipulated by true statements.

I prefer the term “behavior modification.” I chose to discipline my own children according to developmental stages. Babies can’t handle physical punishment, but they manipulate, er, modify parental behavior by crying and it’s up to us to figure out the problem. But greater independence demands self sufficiency and responsibility. For a long time, we hesitated to use physical punishment on our oldest. Then we realized were raising a child that lacked a sense of remorse. The first spanking was difficult for us. His immediate reaction was, in his own way, “did...that just happen? You REALLY went there?” And then he connected the emotional pain he caused us by destructive behavior with the physical pain of consequences. We then realized how far FEAR goes towards correcting behavior.

Our kids have always been physically close to us, like mom and dad are just big, warm, fuzzy, teddy bears. But soon after spanking began to be MO, they connected certain looks and tones of voice and non-verbal signs with impending consequences and TO THIS DAY they will comply.

It wasn’t long after when they became more verbal that we discovered something about our kids. Punishment has never been frequent and so many people ask us our secret. So one day we asked our kids why they act the way they do, and why they don’t act the way other kids do who give their parents such a hard time. They replied, “because it’s the right thing to do.” And we had a deeper discussion on what they meant by “the right thing.” We asked if was because they were afraid of us and being punished, and they said no. Somewhere along the way, without that much help from us, they developed a moral code.

So now the dialog with manip—uh, modifying their behavior is about whether this or that is right or wrong, and whether there are natural consequences that go along with it.

Prison and death penalties are intended as deterrents, something to be avoided by compliance with law. The possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent against other nations using nukes. These are devices used to modify the behavior in public and even globally.

I can modify a grocer’s behavior by giving him money in exchange for food.

I can modify behavior of the random lady at the park by smiling at her and making her smile back at me.

I can take a middle schooler who can’t read a note of music and turn her into a flutist.

I have some kids in charge of sound reinforcement at school assemblies. The same return heavy audio equipment after special events, and I don’t have to lift one finger or risk my vertebrae to do it myself.

Manipulation is just what we do. We all do it and allow it to be done to us. Even if I’m given a directive and refuse, I’ve still been manipulated into giving a response. I’ll comply better if: a) I’m approached directly and with the truth, and b) there’s something in it for me. Sometimes a job well done is all I need. Sometimes it’s just the pleasure of doing something I enjoy. Sometimes it’s money, or a unique opportunity.

Manipulation on its face is not evil. Whether the manipulator is evil or the specific behavior is harmful to the victim on some level is an entirely different question.

Oh, and the cannibalist remark is a non-sequitur and bad analogy. It’s not so much condoning a sin as it is speaking the language. Intelligent people are easily won over with logic. Unfortunately, sometimes the people you need the most in order to accomplish a goal are the least logical. It’s difficult to comminicate logically with people who hang their reasoning firmly in midair with some kind of relativism, or people who insist on being driven by emotion. A child won’t feel sorry for sociopathic behavior unless he is MADE to feel sorry in a tangible physical sense (I’m no apologist for spanking, btw...this is only MY experience, and in our case it had positive outcomes. You have to carefully consider on your own whether that is on the table for you as a parent. Horror stories abound). Not all children or even adults are on the same verbal or cognitive level and won’t always understand things purely on your terms.

I know this is painful for you as a philosopher. It gets sloppy out there. Dealing with people gives me the creeps, I won’t lie. But most people aren’t consciously philosophical or analytical. And I never said reality was a pretty thing. But appealing to that which gives a person pleasure is a surefire way to win them over to your side. Having friends when it counts is always good. Love and other relationships defy logic in all kinds of ways. I mean, the logic is straightforward to the perceiver, obviously, but to those of us that have actually studied it can be a complete mystery. That’s mainly why I post to L&D instead of here. It’s much more interesting me. PPR has grown way too PC for my taste.

While I’m thinking about it, have you ever read Unrugged Individualism by David Kelley? I highly recommend. I’ve borrowed a lot of ideas from that one.