Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Sorry, I'm not even going to listen or read one word of Ayn Rand. It's OK to be selfish for your own prosperity, but to then take it to a level where the pursuit of helping others in need is completely ignored, is a dangerous philosophy. I get no greater satisfaction in life than helping someone who needs it. This is why are society is so screwed up now. The pursuit of selfishness at all costs has completely denigrated society. It's obvious in the professional workspace or just going to the grocery store. It's all about me me me me me me me, and everyone else can go to [censored].
This is the reason many incredibly wealthy people who have it all, are depressed. It doesn't matter what outlet you pursue, if you volunteer or do something that interests you, that also helps people, it's the best form of satisfaction.
The teachings of Ayn Rand go against all modern religions, of which the basic principle is, man can not and should not become a god over other men. When you take pure selfishness to it's logical outcome, it leads to men trying to dominate other men. Social Darwinism if you will. The rejection of a higher power. That is the antitheses of freedom.
I respect your opinion but from what you've posted, it's pretty obvious that you've misinterpreted her philosophy and have even added to it in a way that is purely supporting of your own argument. Rand does not reject per se giving to other people. She does not reject all forms of charity. Here is a quote from Rand: "There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are WORTHY of help and YOU can afford to help them".
On sacrifice she states: “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one".
And on REAL freedom (including the limits religion places upon it) : "Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.
A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument.
It is from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds—from the intransigent innovators—that all of mankind’s knowledge and achievements have come. It is to such minds that mankind owes its survival."
And her quote here examines/explains why the use of the word "selfishness" causes so much dismay and is taken completely wrong: "The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions."
I certainly did not intend to hijack this thread and head down a road leading to conclude that Objectivism and Ayn Rand is the answer to the OP's question. But when he mentioned "emotional strength" and the word "self-sacrifice" I thought a different response than the status-quo may be helpful. Ayn Rand is/was a controversial figure for many, but certainly worthy of a closer look. While you summarily dismissed her, at the same time you seem to not have grasped her concepts and philosophy. I feel a need to state this so others will not do the same and can come to their own conclusions after proper study (if interested). After all, nothing is easy that has value.
