For real this time.
ULYSSES by James Joyce
THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
CATCH-22
DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence
THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
1984 by George Orwell
I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser
THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
NATIVE SON by Richard Wright
HENDERSON THE RAIN KING by Saul Bellow
APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O’Hara
U.S.A. (trilogy) by John Dos Passos
WINESBURG, OHIO by Sherwood Anderson
A PASSAGE TO INDIA by E.M. Forster
THE WINGS OF THE DOVE by Henry James
THE AMBASSADORS by Henry James
TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F. Scott Fitzgerald
THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY by James T. Farrell
THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford
ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
THE GOLDEN BOWL by Henry James
SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser
A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh
AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
ALL THE KING’S MEN by Robert Penn Warren
THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY by Thornton Wilder
HOWARDS END by E.M. Forster
GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin
THE HEART OF THE MATTER by Graham Greene
LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME (series) by Anthony Powell
POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
THE SECRET AGENT by Joseph Conrad
NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad
THE RAINBOW by D.H. Lawrence
WOMEN IN LOVE by D.H. Lawrence
TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth
PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov
LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
THE MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett
PARADE’S END by Ford Madox Ford
THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
ZULEIKA DOBSON by Max Beerbohm
THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY by James Jones
THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES by John Cheever
THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham
HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
MAIN STREET by Sinclair Lewis
THE HOUSE OF MIRTH by Edith Wharton
THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET by Lawrence Durell
A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA by Richard Hughes
A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS by V.S. Naipaul
THE DAY OF THE LOCUST by Nathanael West
A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
SCOOP by Evelyn Waugh
THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by Muriel Spark
FINNEGANS WAKE by James Joyce
KIM by Rudyard Kipling
A ROOM WITH A VIEW by E.M. Forster
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
THE ADVENTURES OF AUGIE MARCH by Saul Bellow
ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner
A BEND IN THE RIVER by V.S. Naipaul
THE DEATH OF THE HEART by Elizabeth Bowen
LORD JIM by Joseph Conrad
RAGTIME by E.L. Doctorow
THE OLD WIVES’ TALE by Arnold Bennett
THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
LOVING by Henry Green
MIDNIGHT’S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
TOBACCO ROAD by Erskine Caldwell
IRONWEED by William Kennedy
THE MAGUS by John Fowles
WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
UNDER THE NET by Iris Murdoch
SOPHIE’S CHOICE by William Styron
THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE by James M. Cain
THE GINGER MAN by J.P. Donleavy
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington
The alternate list:
ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkien
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee
1984 by George Orwell
ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand
MISSION EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
FEAR by L. Ron Hubbard
ULYSSES by James Joyce
CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller
THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
DUNE by Frank Herbert
THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS by Robert Heinlein
STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND by Robert Heinlein
A TOWN LIKE ALICE by Nevil Shute
BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger
ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
GRAVITY’S RAINBOW by Thomas Pynchon
THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
GONE WITH THE WIND by Margaret Mitchell
LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
SHANE by Jack Schaefer
TRUSTEE FROM THE TOOLROOM by Nevil Shute
A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY by John Irving
THE STAND by Stephen King
THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN by John Fowles
BELOVED by Toni Morrison
THE WORM OUROBOROS by E.R. Eddison
THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
MOONHEART by Charles de Lint
ABSALOM, ABSALOM! by William Faulkner
OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham
WISE BLOOD by Flannery O’Connor
UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
FIFTH BUSINESS by Robertson Davies
SOMEPLACE TO BE FLYING by Charles de Lint
ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
YARROW by Charles de Lint
AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS by H.P. Lovecraft
ONE LONELY NIGHT by Mickey Spillane
MEMORY AND DREAM by Charles de Lint
TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
TRADER by Charles de Lint
THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY by Douglas Adams
THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
THE HANDMAID’S TALE by Margaret Atwood
BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
ON THE BEACH by Nevil Shute
A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
GREENMANTLE by Charles de Lint
ENDER’S GAME by Orson Scott Card
THE LITTLE COUNTRY by Charles de Lint
THE RECOGNITIONS by William Gaddis
STARSHIP TROOPERS by Robert Heinlein
THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP by John Irving
SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Ray Bradbury
THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE by Shirley Jackson
AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
THE WOOD WIFE by Terri Windling
THE MAGUS by John Fowles
THE DOOR INTO SUMMER by Robert Heinlein
ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE by Robert Pirsig
I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
AT SWIM-TWO-BIRDS by Flann O’Brien
FARENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury
ARROWSMITH by Sinclair Lewis
WATERSHIP DOWN by Richard Adams
NAKED LUNCH by William S. Burroughs
THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER by Tom Clancy
GUILTY PLEASURES by Laurell K. Hamilton
THE PUPPET MASTERS by Robert Heinlein
IT by Stephen King
V. by Thomas Pynchon
DOUBLE STAR by Robert Heinlein
CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY by Robert Heinlein
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST by Ken Kesey
A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION by Ken Kesey
MY ANTONIA by Willa Cather
MULENGRO by Charles de Lint
SUTTREE by Cormac McCarthy
MYTHAGO WOOD by Robert Holdstock
ILLUSIONS by Richard Bach
THE CUNNING MAN by Robertson Davies
THE SATANIC VERSES by Salman Rushdie
We’ve not met before. I found you through Rational Reality; I like your comments. But I like this reading list even more. Tell me, though: how does it transpire that you have Suttree on your list? I only ask because it’s a pretty obscure book and very dense. And yet it happens to be one of my favorite novels of all time. But Blood Meridian is even better.
Keep on reading, both witless and nude.
Best of all possible regards.
Thanks!
Truth be told, the lists are both from the Modern
Library’s website. The first list is the top 100 novels according to “The Board”. I don’t know who these guys are. The second list is the top 100 according to readers. This, and other odd lists can be found at http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html
Thanks for stopping by!
Thank you, Stephanie.
How, if you don’t mind my asking, did you like Howard Roark? Only curious.
I did. I do. I’ve re-read Fountainhead several times. I forced friends to watch the (waste-of-a) movie. I envy that he lived his life the way he wanted it to be for himself and kept his art true to what he wanted it to be, not what the masses wanted. I saw much of myself in Dominique. (Down, Stephanie! It’s just a character!)
No, not down, Stephanie. On the contrary, your passion for these characters is good.
In fact, it’s been said that the thing that sets great literature apart from merely good is if you can discuss the characters as if they were real people: if you can psychologize over them, in other words, and compare yourself to them, imagine them in scenarios that aren’t in the actual story. I say this: whatever people may think of Ayn Rand — and she definitely has a justifiably mixed reputation — she certainly fulfills this criteria at least.
You also probably know this, but among the objectivist sub-culture, Dominique is considered in many ways the most important character in the entire book, because she’s the only character who grows. All the others remain either the same (Howard Roark and Elsworth Toohey) or else they retrogress (Peter Keating and Gail Wynand. But Dominique goes from what Ayn Rand called a “malevolent sense of life” to a “benevolent sense of life,” and this represents actual maturity.
Interestingly (to me), Dominique has a literary prototype — did you know — in a novel by a man Ayn Rand considered one of the greatest of writers: Dostoyevsky. That character is Natasha Fillipovna, and she’s found in Dostoyevsky’s excellent novel The Idiot. I myself see a lot of Dominique in Natasha. There’s also a character named Josephena from a Victor Hugo novel called The Man who Laughed that’s somewhat Dominique-like. Victor Hugo was, incidentally, her number one favorite writer of all time, and The Man who Laughed was her favorite of his novels. (It was not, however, her favorite novel. Her favorite novel is an obscure American novel called Calumnet K.)
Finally, it’s very interesting to me, Stephanie, that you’ve reread The Fountainhead many times but have not yet scratched Atlas Shrugged off your list. Why, if I may ask?
I did not know that Dominique was considered the most important character in any circles beyond my own brain but, for the reasons that you mentioned, I can see why she would be.
I have not read The Idiot. Since you mentioned it I went and looked up Natasha Fillipovna and found an interesting discussion thread titled something like “Is Natasha going completely insane?” on the Gutenburg projects website. Just from reading through that I could see a ton of similarities myself between her and Dominique though I of course do not really know anything about the story itself. I tend to be drawn to characters that the average person considers “insane”. I’m not really sure how to put the idea to text but…for instance someone like my Grandmother (a devout Harry Potter reader) would probably consider Dominique “completely crazy” and would not consider that maybe not all people are made out of the same mold. I like to figure out the differences I suppose. Re-reading what I just wrote, I probably make no sense but that’s as close as I can come without a cup of coffee yet today. Regardless, it sounds interesting; I’ll definitely have to read that one.
As for Atlas Shrugged – I don’t know why I haven’t read it yet. I tend to give myself quite a bit of space between reading a book that I feel a profound connection to and another by the same author for fear that I will be really disappointed in it.
And now, on to the Secret Agent…
No coffee yet? My goodness, Stephanie, what the hell is the problem? The antisocialist has already had like five cups, and he’s just getting warmed up.
In any case, I could talk literature like this all day and all night long — I’m not even exaggerating — I love it that much. And you’re very enjoyable to talk to, honestly. Yet I have the feeling that you don’t want this page to degenerate into an antisocialist bucal-fecal carnival, and I, for one, don’t at all blame you. I wouldn’t want it either.
I do want to say, though, strictly for posterity’s sake, that Natasha Fillipovna is definitely a more raw version of Dominique, and my calling her a “prototype” is not something I got from Ayn Rand, or for that matter any of the other so-called Objectivists. I noticed this on my own. But I’m absolutely certain of it. For one thing, Ayn Rand’s love of Dostoyevsky is well-known. For another thing, there’s even a scene in The Idiot wherein Natasha whips a man across his face with a quirt. Do you remember in The Fountainhead when Dominique whips Roark across the face with her riding quirt, near the granite quarry? There’s no question in my mind that Ms. Rand got this scene idea from Dostoyevsky. And I’m okay with that. What bothers me is the great pains she and her disciples took (and still take) to deny any sort of literary influences whatsoever.
For another example, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, a character Ayn Rand was statedly enamored of from about ages 18 through 35, is everywhere in Roark and The Fountainhead. Roark is just a more perfected, polished version. I’m even prepared to cite specific scenes, one in particular, but I won’t bore you (anymore).
I do, however, love The Fountainhead, far more than I like Atlas Shrugged, and I think Roark and Gail Wynand two of the great characters in all of literature. I just wish Ayn Rand wasn’t so hellbent on seeming totally original that she went so far as to resort to disembling. Interestingly, though, she did say many times that Gail Wynand, who is a sympathetic character for sure, almost, in fact, Roark’s equal according to the book, is her own interpretation of the Nietzschean ideal man; thus, Gail Wynand (according to her) is a personification of how Nietzsche’s philosophy, for all its flashes of brilliance, ultimately falls short. Ayn Rand, you see, believed that Nietzsche sought to replace the philosophy of Christianity and altruism (sacrificing self to others) with his own philosophy: the philosophy of Ubermensche, or, in English, the “Overman,” or “Superman” who (again, according to Ayn Rand, though I happen to agree) sought to sacrifice others to self. That is Gail Wynand. Wynand is Ayn Rand’s personification of the Ubermensche, but more specifically, he is her personification of why the Ubermensche is untenable: his flaw is that he becomes as much of a slave to others as any altruist becomes a slave to others. That is what destroys Gail Wynand — the fact that he cannot relinquish his (perceived) control over others, who for this very reason paradoxically control him.
Roark, according to her, represents neither altruist not Ubermensche, but is, rather, the man who lives only for his own sake, with his work as his highest purpose. Isn’t that beautiful? I think it is.
Something else about Ayn Rand I do greatly admire, and which even her detractors must admit: she is the only (known) woman in world history to devise an entire philosophic system — meaning: a system that covered all the four major branches of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics) and their subdivisions (economics and esthetics). This is no small thing. She deserves a lot of credit for that, agree or disagree with the actual philosophy.
I do think it’s important to always remember that Gail Wynand is, by her own admission, a sympathetic character. He’s also an extraordinarily powerful character. My question is: how can Nietszche be all bad, as she and her followers later came to condemn his as, when Wynand is in many ways so good?
Finally, I’d like to apologize for the sloppiness of my last comment. Those open-ended italics are atrocious. Sorry about that. Although this one is probably not going to be any better. Let us see….
You may feel free to discuss literature day and night on this blog whenever you feel like – I enjoy reading it. You have single-handedly added at least 3 books to my ‘to-read’ list in but a few short days. If you’ve any other suggestions please do email them to me at lelia5150 at gmail dot com.
Also, I saw that there was a paper on the ‘Rand, Nietszche, and Dostoyevsky triad’ but I was unable to find an actually e-text copy. From what you’ve said, that might be interesting to read.
Hello Stephanie,
Thank you for being so curteous. I’m intrigued by this paper you saw. Who wrote it? Do you remember? Not that it’s too important; I’m only curious.
To give you fair warning, Thus Spake Zarathustra is extraordinarily hard to read, even in the best of translations, which is Walter Kauffman, by the way, not Thomas Commons. That’s my opinion. Apparently, Nietszche had such a poetic and distinctive writing style that it’s all but untranslatable. I mention this only because I myself went into Zarathustra thinking it was going to be a great compelling read, but did not at all find it so. It was arduous, like work, and even though there’s a lot of interesting stuff in there, it has to be mined, and it will not, initially, come easy. In fact, it will come across as almost silly, at times, because of what’s lost in translation. Yet if you perservere you will see where Ayn Rand got her prototypic idea for her ideal man. I stand firm on that, and to me this was worth it.
The Idiot is much easier to read, but still very dense, and of course you have to be prepared for this whole Dark Russian Soul business, which I personally like, but not everyone does, of course. You’re a reader, you know all this, it’s obvious from what’s crossed off your list — or, more accurately, by the fact that you even have such a list at all, and such an ambition. (I like that a lot, by the way.) So I don’t mean to sound like some kind of lecturer. I’ve just recommended these books to people before who wound up hating them. So I’m cautious.
Breach Nietszche’s levy at your peril.
Best of all possible regards.
Not much time, but I checked again really quick for that paper and I could not find what I had seen before (which was a symposium).
Here’s what I did find this time around:http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-104-Dostoevsky_Nietzsche_Ayn_Rands_Moral_Triad.aspx
I’ll be back to reply to the rest of your comment…(I should have waited until I had more time!)
Sorry it’s taken me until now to respond, Stephanie. I mostly wanted to thank you for the link. That was thoughtful of you. I’ll let you know what, if anything, transpires.
Great weekend.
Ah well, that was smart of me. That link didn’t even work now that I’ve tried it.
Trying again… It’s right here!
No, it worked, Stephanie, it worked. I just copied and pasted the link, and it took me right there. I even read the article. You know what I thought? I thought it was too specific and too exclusive, since it pretty much only talked about Dostoevsky’s lame Notes from the Underground (which Ayn Rand didn’t even like), and I also thought the article was a little too academic-sounding. It didn’t quite make it off the page; but I did read it with great interest, and I thank you again for turning me on to it.
The Objectivist Center, which is where that article appears, was founded by a man named David Kelley, who was once high up in the orthodox Objectivist movement. If you don’t know, Objectivism has always been very insular and cult-like, even when Ayn Rand was alive. David Kelley is a pretty brilliant philosopher — he wrote a good philosophy book called Evidence of the Senses — who was excommunicated from the “official” Objectivist camp, headed by Ayn Rand’s designated “intellectual heir” Leonard Peikoff, because he, David Kelley, committed the unpardonable sin of speaking at a Libertarian supper club. For that, he was officially excommunicated from orthodox Objectivism. What do you think of that?
Since then, David Kelley’s written a book called Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism and he also founded his separate organization: The Objectivist Center. The orthodox Objectivists hate him with an unbelievable passion, and the whole saga is an embarrassment to all of Objectivism, and even, in my opinion, to Ayn Rand herself, because she’s the one who started all this cultish nonsense.
That’s why the antisocialist just sticks with The Fountainhead and stays away from all the other shit.
Incidentally, I read your latest post — “Most of the time it doesn’t pay to get out of bed” — with maximum interest. I had an experience like that once. I’ll tell you about it sometime, if you’re ever in the mood to be bored to tears.
Huh…I copy/pasted the link and it didn’t work. You must have the advanced copy/paste browser add-on. Ok, not really…
Finding that link though was frustrating because it is NOT what I had originally seen. I tend to stay away from articles about ’something’ posted on the website for ’same-something’ as being biased. Not to mention whatever it was that I saw the first time around was specifically a website advertising a symposium on this very subject. Frustrating.
To answer your question, I honestly think the whole thing sounds like the plot to a daytime drama. I had checked out the Objectivist Center’s website and the Ayn Rand Institute shortly after reading the Fountainhead (the first time) and found them to be less educational then …. say, cultish in a Scientology sort of way (minus the aliens and Tom Cruise).
Everything in moderation, I suppose.
I never thought I’d say, “Yes, please bore me to tears” but if you’ve a story that can match the day I’ve had today then I’d love to hear it.
Since, from my perspective, we’ve had such an interesting discussion about literature here, Stephanie, I thought you might like to read the antisocialist’s brief foray into the seedy world of literary noir. It’s over at the antisocialist dot com. But please don’t feel obliged. Only if you’re interested. You must, however, of course start at chapter one and follow it sequentially.
Best of all possible regards.
Gah… Atlas Shrugged… Ayn Rand was evil… According to her, altruism is an evil emotion.
I hardly think she was evil nor do I believe she thought altruism was “evil” though she rejected it as a moral concept.
I’ll give you that I don’t necessarily agree with her on that point, but opinions make the world go round.
Ayn Rand didn’t, for the record, Tyrone, consider altruism an “emotion” at all. She considered it a philosophy, and indeed she’s absolutely correct on this point: altruism is a philosophy – specifically, a moral philosophy.
The urge to be compassionate, or to help one’s fellow humans is not altruism. The word “altruism” literally means “other-ism,” deriving from the Latin word alter, which means “another; of or to others.” The philosophy of altruism states that humans cannot be moral unless we exist for others. If we exist for our own sake, we are according to the philosophy of altruism, immoral.
Altruism explicitly states that we as humans have no moral right to exist for our own sake, and that therefore service to others is the only moral justification of our existence. Our own enjoyment and pleasure are automatically negated by altruism. Politically, this has obvious ramifactions – i.e. government coercion – which Ayn Rand was of course very much opposed to, but more fundamental than that are the moral ramifications of otherism, also known as altruism.
Among those moral ramifications is the fact that a person cannot be virtuous unless she sacrifices herself to others. In response to this rather incredible notion, Ayn Rand and Nietszche both asked the simple question: Says who? Where, they asked, does this doctrine of otherism ultimately derive? Is it written in nature? Or is it so simply because “God” says it is? And how can you prove it to me that I must not be allowed to exist for my own sake, that others have a moral claim to my life?
All of which I mention, Tyrone, simply to clarify your rather extraordinary generalization that, to quote you directly, “Ayn Rand was evil.”
Here are her own words on the subject of altruism:
“Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice – which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction – which means: the self as a standard of evil, and only others as the standard of good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a begger. That is not the issue. The issue with altruism is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving a begger a dime, or if you are morally compelled to give to that begger. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any human of self-esteem will answer: ‘No!’ Altruism, on the other hand, answers: ‘Yes!’” (Philosophy Who Needs It, p. 61, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World.”)
Oh yes, I know what you mean by saying she meant it as an altruistic philosophy. However, in the video’s in which I personally watched her say outloud, she says explicitly that if a man shows altruism, and acts in a self sacrificial way, they are being “evil”. (I use the term evil liberally, as in the sense of duality.. not the big bad evil oh no hide they’re going to kill you) She stated, in this video I watched (which I will link you with in a second… nvm it was taken down
) that a person is here to look out for themselves solely, and that if he acts out on anothers behalf, it is not necessary nor is it welcomed. I believe the term she used was to be selfish, which she claimed to be a high virtue. We’re not living in an objective world, so regardless of your philosophy you are not wrong. (Unless you think Science can pin down philosophy of mind)
I personally believe a man has to help himself, in order to be of service to those around him. I say this merely for the simple fact that once you have achieved your goals, or once you have reached a certain pinnacle of life… A question becomes apparent… “What am I here for? Why am I here?”. In my opinion, at that point in life, you’re here to help make the world a better place, solely for the fact that you have the power to do so, more then those who wish they could.
A quote I’m sure you’re familiar with:
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
and my response:
Better that he who has it to share it, then for he who doesn’t to be lost.
Also… altruism (at least as defined by dictionary.com)
Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental or without reproductive benefit to the individual but that contributes to the survival of the group to which the individual belongs. The willingness of a subordinate member of a wolf pack to forgo mating and help care for the dominant pair’s pups is an example of altruistic behavior. While the individual may not reproduce, or may reproduce less often, its behavior helps ensure that a close relative does successfully reproduce, thus passing on a large share of the altruistic individual’s genetic material.
I can see the perspective she holds and how it would arise within a person, however in my view it does not rub my emotions (yes emotions) in a “good” sense. In other words, her philosophies don’t make me feel warm and fuzzy, but cold and clammy.
UR ALL AUTHORS!!! I KNOW IT