The most dangerous religion

[SpontaneousOrder]

Its 'The Fountainhead' and its a novel, its not real, bit like the Bible actually.

What do you mean it's not real? I'm reading it so it must be real.

[pjclarke]

I see Rational Wiki got it right, on this occasion.

[minestrone]

Right, but that's not altruism!!! you can't just keep on insisting that words mean what you want them to mean - when they don't.



Yeah, we did. But Hitchens was wrong - looking at the history of the last century, the cult of altruism is a major cause of much of the cruelty and suffering we've seen.

Re altruism & benevolent impulses - it's when that benevolent impulse is self-sacrificial in nature that it's altruistic. I.e. If you value justice for example, and you give up your time and effort to help someone see justice, then your actions haven't been altruistic ; You've laboured to make the world a better place - for YOU. You recognised and acted to further a virtue, which result's in pride - the root of all real human happiness.

When you see a beggar in the street and you buy him a cup of coffee out of pitty, you don't suffer for that. The cost of the coffee is insignificant. You've indulged your emotions (an essential art of being a man) and have had the rational self-interest to only buy him a coffee - not to give him your house. That isn't altruism.

If you're out on a cold night and you give your coat to a stranger - to relieve his suffering and take it upon yourself instead - then that is altruistic; You've exchanged another's suffering for your own - not to buy some other virtue, as an investment - but because you have valued yourself less than (or equal to) another.
The doctrine of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is altruistic.


Rational self-interest cannot be altruistic - they are exactly opposed. Rand's work on selfishness (rather than self-destruction) as a virtue makes the disctinction clearer.

I think I'll just stick with representative democracy if that is OK.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think I'll just stick with representative democracy if that is OK.

What's that got to do with altruism?

[minestrone]

What's that got to do with altruism?

Nothing.

But someone who talks as much mince as you should have your political expression banned, not for political reasons, because you are dull as ****.

[NotAllThere]

Duller, surely?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Nothing.

But someone who talks as much mince as you should have your political expression banned, not for political reasons, because you are dull as ****.

And oddly you feel compelled to spend your time reading it and commenting on it being dull. If I'm dull as tulip, then you must be tragic.

[xoggoth]

You're not dull at all. Nice to read posts by a CUKer who can actually think for himself.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You're not dull at all. Nice to read posts by a CUKer who can actually think for himself.

Thanks dad.

[Cenobite]

If you ever get around to trying again, the story is actually really good - you just have to wait a long time for plots to unfold because it's so big. The genius thing about it, I think, is that given that it's 1100 pages of small print - full of lots of character detail - pretty much every single piece of that detail exists for a reason, as it unfolds.

Don't be tempted to watch the films - they don't even make sense in the context of the book's story. They're junk.

I'll give that some thought. When I picked up "Atlas Shrugged" from the library my heart sank when I saw what a tome it was. I probably got about a third of the way through.

I thought about getting the AS films but I don't think the last part is out yet. "The Fountainhead" is meant to be a classic film or is that junk too?

I listen to all of Stefan Molyneux's podcasts but don't donate. (Unfortunately I see it more as entertainment). Loved his recent one about Ebola.