Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
Living by a 'code of existence' that reduces everything to mere 'tools' and 'symbols' (regardless of what the symbols represent - though for Rand, they seem to represent nothing but themselves) is dehumanising. Where is empathy? Where is love? What room is there for emotion at all in Rand's world? It is all utopian nonsense anyway. And while utopias may occasionally be interesting to imagine, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one...
|
The 'code of existence' you complain about, is described by Rand as the qualities she mentions in the paragraphs that you seem to completely ignore in their content and implications. Especially a causal link between causes and effects, and her rejection of plundering and slavery as principles for interhuman interaction, disguising them as "social". Neither Rand nor me accept claims on social obligations if they just serve the purpose of stealing the deserved earnngs of the good and giving it to those not deserving and of lesser merits.
The decision whether i help somebody or not, should be left to where it belongs. It should be left with me, when it is about my ressources that are to be jsed on that. You do not know when and why I choose to intervene. And it does not matter that you do. That it is my volntary decision for or against ist, what counts. I do not accept benefitters of greed-led redistribution competitions and career-politicians anymore to decide in my place and then oblige me to pay for their decisions.
And emotions, you mentioned. It is strange, to me the positive characters in the novel show very strong, passionate emotions. But these are emotions grounding in honesty, self-reliance and strength - not this miserable wishy-washy that is so popular today and that aims at making the good ones feeling guilty for their goodness and accepting the purpose of the miserable ones wanting to suck their lifeblood and money.
I am empathic, absolutely. But I do not loose my head over it. It is the head that enables men to adress needs and solve problems, not the heart.Wallowing in emotions of pity never has saved a single life, ever. Empathy is not the call for blindly nursing just everybody who makes a claim for what is yours.
One year ago or so there started a debate in Germany. It was when Bill Gates made his call for billionaires sharing their wealth and give donations to projects of his foundation, sometthing like that. The socialists here in Germany almost exploded in anger. Free people of wealth freely deciding if and fkr what purpose they give donations? The German , eft immediately refused that, and claimed that these antisocial rich people should be forced by law fo give their donations to the politicians instead, and that the politicians then decide for them.
Must the underhanded and malicious bigotry here really be explained any further? I only say this: there is a huge social activity business in place now, and many people's careers and jobs, incomes and election chances depend on that this not only not changes, but is getting boosted in size even more. I call it social-fascism, due to its omnipresence and imperial claim to surrender to it, unconditionally.
And that is pushing more and more people into dependence from the wellfare state.That is wanted, because it secures politicians their thankfulness, while making the people weak and defenceless, robbing their dignity, self-esteem, initiative, and freedom. It also ruins our economies, destroyed our money, grows our debts, and make our chidren getting born as slaves to the sins of their fathers.
Empathy, you say? Fine, but not without carefully discriminating between those deserving jt and thkse who don't, and weighing the costs against the gains and weighing the intentions against unwanted effects.
Much of what Rand says in the quotes, is nothing else but common sense, some is consequences of libertarian/Austrian money theory and economic theory.
Quote:
"Senor d'Anconia," declared the woman with the earrings, "I don't agree with you!"
"If you can refute a single sentence I uttered, madame, I shall hear it gratefully."
"Oh, I can't answer you. I don't have any answers, my mind doesn't work that way, but I don't feel that you're right, so I know that you're wrong."
"How do you know it?"
"I feel it. I don't go by my head, but by my heart. You might be good at logic, but you're heartless."
"Madame, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, 'But I didn't know it!'—you will not be forgiven."
|