Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[bennyboy]

-and?  Adversity, like all other human experience, is subjective.  The knife may not be as deep, but is the pain any less acute on account of that?  Because that's all that really matters if we need struggle and adversity.  Not the factual status of either.   You clearly feel a loss on account of a -lack- of adversity.  Is that more or less painful and character building than chasing your dinner?  I've chased mine....I've suffered, does that make me more developed than yourself?  It hardly seems so.

Maybe we are all different. But if we are talking about quality of life, I'd say it is necessary to really feel alive. In my own experience, those parts of life which I remember most happily aren't those in which I was most comfortable, best fed, or even healthiest. They are those in which I felt an intimate connection to my instincts-- the response to danger, the heights of young love, the excitement of conquering either others or myself in a fair match.

I'm not sure that the modern comforts really allow a person to feel fully alive; in fact, I'd say they serve much more as a kind of opiate-- a dulling of the senses, and a general lack of purpose.

As far as that's concerned..I have no use for her ideas.  I'm not interested in rational self interest - I don't need a reason to engage in self interested pursuits nor do I feel compelled to rationalize them in order to justify them morally.  Axiomatically, I am at the opposite end of that spectrum, and those ideas of hers that conflict with mine are similarly fiat accompli...and so beyond debate.

I'd say you're totally right-- from my perspective. But that's because dealing with other people, even those you consider your inferiors, is part of the trials and joys of life. I do not think a person can really separate himself from the rest of humanity, chase material needs, and then consider himself fully alive-- at least, not fully engaged in a human life.

However, what of those who by their nature lack compassion, and who by their nature revel in the material pleasures of life? Do they owe it to humanity to go against their own natures?

Let's take a Wall Street guy with billions who is repossessing homes. He has no guilt, he doesn't need to justify his action. He just takes because he can, and because he takes pleasure in doing so. In my opinion, he's acting as he should-- this is his nature. It's up to the rest of us sheep to drag him out of his tower by his heels and introduce him to the guillotine.