Smith, Rand, Altruism


eva matthews

Recommended Posts

The subject in question, Smith, seems rather fond of the altruism issue as raised by Rand; the reference to his article is attached to all of his postings on OL.



Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Smith gives Rand’s ideas unnecessary gloss.


This, of course, is important in the sense that it firewalls the writer from a he-said-she-said confusion of cross purposes. For all extent and purposes, Smithrand is Randsmith.



As such, Rand’s thesis is simple: altruism stands opposed to selfishness. Now this is obvious. One is said to be either thinking of others’ interests or of oneself during moments when the dilemma presents itself.



Rand goes on, however, to link altruism with reason. By consequence, altruism is unreasonable.



Yet this can easily be seen to either be false or a tautology: ‘false’ in the sense that most of social life involves putting a collective ahead of oneself in order to achieve future gain. It’s a ‘tautology’ because if all acts of giving have an ulterior purpose ( and are therefore ‘reasonable’), the notion itself of altruism becomes senseless.



An excellent example of how altruism works can be seen in the Pauline texts, ostensibly beginning with 1Cor13— “agapion demeicho, outhern emi’—without giving, I am nothing. The point, here, is that the act of giving (Lat ‘caritas’) creates the requisite circulation of goods and services which binds the community together.



Because Roman incursion had destroyed the social networks of all lands they had seen fit to ‘visit’, a new religion was needed to bind people back together into a ‘soma’ (body, community).



In terms of basic Anthropology, one needs look no further than Malinowski’s study of the Trobriand Islands. Suffice to say that the inhabitants discovered the virtue of altruism prior to the intrusion of the missionaries!



So I could go on and on, but you see the point: all viable societies understand the natural pitfalls to selfishness, and adapt accordingly with rules of how to share. Aristotle, btw, called this ‘metadosis’.



Spinoza, for his part, defined the organization of democracy with this particular in mind. His own account of human behavior was that of ‘conatus’, or ‘striving’, and also went on to say that “after all, all humans always want to be right and to have their own way”.



His solution, then, was rather straightforward. Social organization is always a matter of all of the particular individuals understanding that their collective power (potens) is greater than that of multiple singularities (potestas).



So in modern industrial society, one might infer that organized collectivism, or formal redistribution, has simply supplanted social custom. Nowhere do we see total altruism or total selfishness. Everywhere they function together, at least where functionality can be discerned.


Now this leads to my point about Comte. Briefly, Randsmith asserts without proof that his writings somehow serve as the basis for the modern welfare state. And, of course, we have this silly polemic between the opposite 'great ideas', somewhere in the Hegelian spacetime manifold of 19th century thought. Perhaps, then thisis where Smithrand really belong?



This leads to my own two points, which I call the ‘Borodino syndrome’ and the ‘hysterical historical’.



First, this past summer was that of the ‘familial split’. I went to Paris, Sissy to London, and Momndad to Athens, Budapest (family)…then on to Russia. All of us returned home with endless stories—so here’s my fave from the parental unit:



While in Moscow, they decided to take a tour bus out to the Borodino battlefield of War and Peace. The tour director was fluent English, even with no accent. “Here”, he said, literally in tears, “is where Pierre manned the cannon against the charging French infantry!”



“But”, said, my dad, “even by Tolstoy’s account it was ‘here’ on the parapet that the French broke the Russian lines, killing everyone. And if Pierre didn’t survive, he could not have married Natasha!”



Well, it’s obvious where I get my smart-ass nature, but the larger point is that one cannot substitute fiction for reality. Newsflash: Smith talks of Galt and Tuhoy as if they were real, historical examples, rather than stickboard figurines drawn from screenplay.



In other words, that Tuhoy is ‘altruistic’ and Galt is selfish’ proves absolutely nothing other than the obvious fact that rand’s characters lack prerequisite complexity to pass as real humans.



Moreover, absolutely no other example is offered by Smith as to how altruism and egoism work themselves out in the real world. They’re real-life ‘opposites’ because that’s how they’re described as characters In Rand’s novels. How pathetic.



As for the ‘hysterical historical’, we have Smith claiming, as a Randian mouthpiece, that the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Inquisition, etc… were all caused by ‘altruism’. But no proof is offered (of course!), rather, merely a blind, hysterical assertion.



Now Smith should know better. His book on liberty was accepted for publication by Cambridge –quite an honor!—because of the scholarship and research involved. Yet he writes on history as if the same standards do not apply.



So given his capacity to do legitimate work, this digression into Randite doxology is shameful. Or rather, et’s just say that after the glory of the Cambridge publication, he renounced scholarship for screed.



Lastly , regarding Rand herself, her employ of ‘The Borodino syndrome’ and the ‘hysterical historical’ drives my point home, once again, that she was a put-on who, intellectually speaking, knew better. These errors are childish to the point of lacking standards of a decent high-school.



EM



EM



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The subject in question, Smith, seems rather fond of the altruism issue as raised by Rand; the reference to his article is attached to all of his postings on OL.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Smith gives Rand’s ideas unnecessary gloss.

This, of course, is important in the sense that it firewalls the writer from a he-said-she-said confusion of cross purposes. For all extent and purposes, Smithrand is Randsmith.

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tying to con Sept you'll eyes what eggs aptly is going on hear, but I'm halving traubel... :wacko:

Reading Naomi's post nearly broke my brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about half of this and put it here in the Garbage Pile.

I might have been too hasty, though.

Imagine if this gets published in a longer work by the same author and hits the New York Times Best Seller List.

Boy, would I look foolish.

:smile:

Michael

Too bad you don't have a category called "Pretentious Twaddle."

Perhaps one of these days our learned scholar, who goes by the name "Eva," will learn the elementary distinction between explaining the ideas of another person and one's evaluation of those ideas. As anyone who has followed me on OL for any length of time knows, I disagree with Rand on many points, but most especially on her interpretation of history. But I should stop here, lest I confuse our learned scholar even more. We wouldn't want her brain to implode from too much clarity.

I figured that our learned scholar, having been erased from my corner thread, would start another thread for the purpose of carrying on her silly vendetta. But I'm not taking the bait this time. This will be my last comment. But, before erasing "Eva" from my mind, I cannot resist pointing out that much of what I wrote about Spencer and "survival of the fittest" on the L.org site was reprinted, nearly word for word, in my Cambridge book, and it passed the muster of two academic readers and two editorial boards. I wasn't asked to change a word. I should also note that my Cambridge book is devoted entirely to intellectual history, an area in which I have published extensively for nearly 45 years. So you can imagine how saddened I was when I didn't receive the approval of our learned scholar -- an undergraduate, apparently, who is majoring in psychology. I crave the approval of undergraduates. 8-)

"Eva" is now free to ramble on without any interference from me. I sincerely hope she eventually learns how to read with some level of understanding, and how to make a coherent point. She has nowhere to go but up.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

Oh my. Sounds like Roland Pericles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my. Sounds like Roland Pericles.

I was thinking that we should establish a "Roland Pericles" Prize and award it to Naomi.

(Naomi,

On a once-upon-a-time list called "Atlantis" there was a poster who went by the name "Roland Pericles" and who produced works of art such as yours. Yours is a jewel of the type. Bravo.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my. Sounds like Roland Pericles.

I was thinking that we should establish a "Roland Pericles" Prize and award it to Naomi.

(Naomi,

On a once-upon-a-time list called "Atlantis" there was a poster who went by the name "Roland Pericles" and who produced works of art such as yours. Yours is a jewel of the type. Bravo.)

Ellen

Echoing Roland Pericles, "Eye could knot agree Moore." RP is an OL member, but has only posted twice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject in question, Smith, seems rather fond of the altruism issue as raised by Rand; the reference to his article is attached to all of his postings on OL.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Smith gives Rand’s ideas unnecessary gloss.

This, of course, is important in the sense that it firewalls the writer from a he-said-she-said confusion of cross purposes. For all extent and purposes, Smithrand is Randsmith.

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

Eye fish that eye kudzu that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva does not confine her gibberish to English.

"agapion demeicho, outhern emi" is, to venture a guess, "agapēn de mē exō, ouden ōpheloumai" (Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies 1983, p. 607). I don't recall seeing a single one of the words that appear in Eva's version. It looks like what bad voice-recognition software might type out if you spoke the correct text into it. Or good software if you set it to recognize Dutch.

σωμα means "body" as in "psychosomatic". It does not mean "community". That would be πολις (whence “politics”) or δημος (whence “democracy”).

"Power" would be "potentia" or "potestas", not "potens". "Potesta" is apparently a misspelling of "potestas": "power", as noted. It does not mean "singularity".

One really ought to try for precision in Greek and Latin. The people who created these languages aren't here to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad you don't have a category called "Pretentious Twaddle."

Perhaps one of these days our learned scholar, who goes by the name "Eva," will learn the elementary distinction between explaining the ideas of another person and one's evaluation of those ideas. As anyone who has followed me on OL for any length of time knows, I disagree with Rand on many points, but most especially on her interpretation of history. But I should stop here, lest I confuse our learned scholar even more. We wouldn't want her brain to implode from too much clarity.

I figured that our learned scholar, having been erased from my corner thread, would start another thread for the purpose of carrying on her silly vendetta. But I'm not taking the bait this time. This will be my last comment. But, before erasing "Eva" from my mind, I cannot resist pointing out that much of what I wrote about Spencer and "survival of the fittest" on the L.org site was reprinted, nearly word for word, in my Cambridge book, and it passed the muster of two academic readers and two editorial boards. I wasn't asked to change a word. I should also note that my Cambridge book is devoted entirely to intellectual history, an area in which I have published extensively for nearly 45 years. So you can imagine how saddened I was when I didn't receive the approval of our learned scholar -- an undergraduate, apparently, who is majoring in psychology. I crave the approval of undergraduates. 8-)

"Eva" is now free to ramble on without any interference from me. I sincerely hope she eventually learns how to read with some level of understanding, and how to make a coherent point. She has nowhere to go but up.

Ghs

Our "Eva" is currently committing a form of visual identity fraud by using someone else's image as her user photo.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad you don't have a category called "Pretentious Twaddle."

Perhaps one of these days our learned scholar, who goes by the name "Eva," will learn the elementary distinction between explaining the ideas of another person and one's evaluation of those ideas. As anyone who has followed me on OL for any length of time knows, I disagree with Rand on many points, but most especially on her interpretation of history. But I should stop here, lest I confuse our learned scholar even more. We wouldn't want her brain to implode from too much clarity.

I figured that our learned scholar, having been erased from my corner thread, would start another thread for the purpose of carrying on her silly vendetta. But I'm not taking the bait this time. This will be my last comment. But, before erasing "Eva" from my mind, I cannot resist pointing out that much of what I wrote about Spencer and "survival of the fittest" on the L.org site was reprinted, nearly word for word, in my Cambridge book, and it passed the muster of two academic readers and two editorial boards. I wasn't asked to change a word. I should also note that my Cambridge book is devoted entirely to intellectual history, an area in which I have published extensively for nearly 45 years. So you can imagine how saddened I was when I didn't receive the approval of our learned scholar -- an undergraduate, apparently, who is majoring in psychology. I crave the approval of undergraduates. 8-)

"Eva" is now free to ramble on without any interference from me. I sincerely hope she eventually learns how to read with some level of understanding, and how to make a coherent point. She has nowhere to go but up.

Ghs

Our "Eva" is currently committing a form of visual identity fraud by using someone else's image as her user photo.

J

That girl is not foaming at the mouth, so it's definitely not "Eva."

This is all very weird. Given all the goofball posts, I'm still not sure that we are not dealing with either a troll or a prankster.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very weird. Given all the goofball posts, I'm still not sure that we are not dealing with either a troll or a prankster.

Ghs

I don't understand the motive. Is it a thrill to pretend to be something and to try to fool people into believing that it's real? If so, "Eva" failed very quickly. But then she kept going. So, what's the thrill in continuing the pose long after everyone knows that it's a fraud?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the motive. Is it a thrill to pretend to be something and to try to fool people into believing that it's real? If so, "Eva" failed very quickly. But then she kept going. So, what's the thrill in continuing the pose long after everyone knows that it's a fraud?

J

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

  • Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments (check)
  • Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others (check)
  • Envies others and believes others envy him/her (don't know)
  • Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence (check)
  • Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others (don't know)
  • Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior (check)
  • Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic (not sure)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think that NPD manifested itself in puppets, pseudonyms and fictional identities. My understanding was that narcissists would want their own real identity to receive the attention and any possible admiration, and would not want it wasted on a make-believe character that they had invented.

But perhaps the fictionalizing of an identity has evolved due to a long history of past failures and embarrassments? Maybe it's a way to be cautious in testing how well the pose is going over, and if it succeeds, the real person can then eventually step forward and collect his praise, but if it fails, then no one has to know that it was him who turned out to be anything but superior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think that NPD manifested itself in puppets, pseudonyms and fictional identities. My understanding was that narcissists would want their own real identity to receive the attention and any possible admiration, and would not want it wasted on a make-believe character that they had invented.

But perhaps the fictionalizing of an identity has evolved due to a long history of past failures and embarrassments? Maybe it's a way to be cautious in testing how well the pose is going over, and if it succeeds, the real person can then eventually step forward and collect his praise, but if it fails, then no one has to know that it was him who turned out to be anything but superior?

"She" lives vicariously through her online persona. Any praise and approval the persona receives is experienced by the narcissist as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now