According to most definitions, selfishness is considered destructive. I suppose this spawned the ideal of “enlightened self-interest”
This debate, the rationalizations, the judgment, the guilt, has gone on for centuries, millennia…they never resolved it, in my opinion. This leaning by Rand is intriguing…
Rational selfishness:
Rational selfishness is generally related to Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy, referring to a person’s efforts to look after their own well-being, to cultivate the self and achieve goals for the good of the self. The focus in rational selfishness is considered more self-directed (where the benefit to society, if any, is an unintentional by-product…) than the focus of enlightened self-interest which is more group-directed (and the benefit to oneself might be more of the by-product).
How do you describe the resolution to this and where do you see naturally occurring examples…?
Steven
on May 12, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Billy, I have one example for you… That I think resolves the ego’s dilemma…
Flight attendants remind us that in the event of an in-flight emergency oxygen massk will drop from the cabin above at each seat and that we should put the mask on ourselves first BEFORE trying to help others…
Donna L
on May 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Billy that is an excellent question and point. It made me think of dharma. Then it even brought up karma. The practical example I thought of was meditation. We do it alone or in a group, but it benefits both us and all around us.
Billy
on May 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Steven, your pragmatic scenario is based in what I think we called “exist-entialism” in my philosophy school days. I noticed that Maharshi emphasized the large “S” in Self…implying the deeper transcendental self I believe.
It seems it is at that level of being where all the relative existential and idealized scenarios are resolved in some super-natural, wild and wonderful way. But I suspect that is something that we can not measure or fully observe to a degree that would satisfy the skeptic or philosopher.
I suspect the underlying assumptions in all of those scenarios is inherently flawed from the start…based in a limited scope of possibilities…
What if everyone’s S-elf and Self-ish needs & desires are fully supported and with infinite room to expand…?
Maharshi
on May 13, 2012 at 7:14 am
When the self is small, some call that being ego centric. When the self expands to become the Self, it is all encompassing. Some say the enlightened are without ego. Nothing could be more false. The Ego of the Enlightened is huge… One sees all things as the Self. The Ego embraces all things. That is what unity means. However, in that state, one does not become disconnected from the level of life of the body and personal interest. As these coexist in harmony, self love and Universal Love become one. This is not an attitude or philosophy. It is a state of physiology. It does not look like what you may expect. To really see, you must look to the depth, not the surface. Hollywood depictions of Jesus have gone a long way in helping to confuse the issue. The world is not as you have been lead to believe.
Karin Eckert
on May 13, 2012 at 10:09 am
Reading everyone’s comments, what jumped out at me was Billy’s ‘S-elf’. Took me back to my childhood where elfs were real. Well, they still are – relatively real.
~
According to most definitions, selfishness is considered destructive. I suppose this spawned the ideal of “enlightened self-interest”
This debate, the rationalizations, the judgment, the guilt, has gone on for centuries, millennia…they never resolved it, in my opinion. This leaning by Rand is intriguing…
Rational selfishness:
Rational selfishness is generally related to Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy, referring to a person’s efforts to look after their own well-being, to cultivate the self and achieve goals for the good of the self. The focus in rational selfishness is considered more self-directed (where the benefit to society, if any, is an unintentional by-product…) than the focus of enlightened self-interest which is more group-directed (and the benefit to oneself might be more of the by-product).
How do you describe the resolution to this and where do you see naturally occurring examples…?
Billy, I have one example for you… That I think resolves the ego’s dilemma…
Flight attendants remind us that in the event of an in-flight emergency oxygen massk will drop from the cabin above at each seat and that we should put the mask on ourselves first BEFORE trying to help others…
Billy that is an excellent question and point. It made me think of dharma. Then it even brought up karma. The practical example I thought of was meditation. We do it alone or in a group, but it benefits both us and all around us.
Steven, your pragmatic scenario is based in what I think we called “exist-entialism” in my philosophy school days. I noticed that Maharshi emphasized the large “S” in Self…implying the deeper transcendental self I believe.
It seems it is at that level of being where all the relative existential and idealized scenarios are resolved in some super-natural, wild and wonderful way. But I suspect that is something that we can not measure or fully observe to a degree that would satisfy the skeptic or philosopher.
I suspect the underlying assumptions in all of those scenarios is inherently flawed from the start…based in a limited scope of possibilities…
What if everyone’s S-elf and Self-ish needs & desires are fully supported and with infinite room to expand…?
When the self is small, some call that being ego centric. When the self expands to become the Self, it is all encompassing. Some say the enlightened are without ego. Nothing could be more false. The Ego of the Enlightened is huge… One sees all things as the Self. The Ego embraces all things. That is what unity means. However, in that state, one does not become disconnected from the level of life of the body and personal interest. As these coexist in harmony, self love and Universal Love become one. This is not an attitude or philosophy. It is a state of physiology. It does not look like what you may expect. To really see, you must look to the depth, not the surface. Hollywood depictions of Jesus have gone a long way in helping to confuse the issue. The world is not as you have been lead to believe.
Reading everyone’s comments, what jumped out at me was Billy’s ‘S-elf’. Took me back to my childhood where elfs were real. Well, they still are – relatively real.