Nietzche's Übermensch

“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
"​

What is the difference between healthy self-fullness and selfishness? The selffull one does not live "for himself" as if he (or she) were apart from the rest. She is true to her unique experience and being without living folded in upon herself, self-centered and self-seeking only. He's a member and participant in his society without losing himself in it. He knows when and how to form solidarity with others in pursuing common goals and addressing common needs. He has integrity -- which means that he's authentically himself and whole, both. An attribute of his wholeness is his having won his individuality without having lost his bond with humanity and the rest of the living world.
 
This is how this sort of "reasoning" hits my ears. I'd compare it to...

Firefighters are arsonists at heart because they get their pictures taken and plastered all over newspapers, where they can be held up as heros.

How can you reason with people who say shit like that?

Ah, but there is truth to that "reasoning". You are feisty, River.

Yes, probably every firefighter was influenced into their vocation in past because firemen are heroes that get attention and are respected, of course rightly so. Culturally, firefighter is in the top three answers for "What do you want to be when you grow up?", I'm pretty sure.

I think rather than self-full or selfish, it is more of a case of self-interested. A person's sphere of influence can be more impactful and genuine when self-interest is clearly expressed and reciprocal in an interaction with a person or a community.

For example, I am a member with a certain national service commission (that is under threat of being cut from the fed. budget) serving with a certain non-profit international affordable housing operation and so I get to do the "altruism" thing every day.

My self-interest is very much engaged, however. I learn all manner of things, do satisfying, palatable work, get to write, get to teach, have a flexible schedule, work with all sorts, build my reputation and my resume blah, blah, and get a scholarship when it's all over. The people I work with get to utilize my talents, members of my community have new homes, blah, blah, everybody wins. (I am much more emotionally invested than the blahs may imply, but for the sake of the example...)

@Charlie-Didn't get to read the Rand yet, but I'll get to it.

-R
 
Ah, but there is truth to that "reasoning". You are feisty, River.

Reason breaks down when pseudo reasoning takes over. Pseudo reasoning often involves making "whole truths" out of half truths and partial truths of smaller percentages. Rand is doing this to the hilt, all over the place.

She falsely divides individuals from their communities and then sets community against individuals. Yes, sometimes this happens, but quite the opposite can and does also happen. Rand's propagandistic purpose doesn't allow for such "muddyness," as she'd call it if pressed. Only the isolated (atomistic) ego is authentic and free in Rand's tale.

She portrays all acts of generosity and kindness as pure forms of self-interest (selfishness), bargains or deals cut at best. As if we who live in the real world are not rather motivated by a complex blend of self interest and compassion, kindness, generosity--altruism. In Rand's world, there is no love -- only self-seeking.

This is a forum about love and loving. Surely we here do believe in it?
 
Back
Top