"In a culture which is built on the assumption that greed is good (Thanks a lot for that, Ayn Rand), antisocial behavior becomes not only tolerated but encouraged by many citizens."
People mean many different things when they use the term "greed", and as you do not define your usage in this quote, it is difficult to know exactly what you intended. If by "greed", you mean a self-interested desire to accept responsibility for achieving results and obtain goods that further one's life, than I would classify this as a very good thing, and you would be correct is ascribing to Ayn Rand her classification of this as a virtue. On the other hand, if by greed you mean an irrational desire for an insatiable acquisition of goods obtained by any means, including through the violation of the rights of others, then you couldn't be more wrong in attributing this view to Rand. Your failure to make a clear distinction between these two drastically different views of the concept "greed", coupled with the fact that it is the later definition which most people will assume applies here, results in a gross misrepresentation of Rand's views by your off-the-cuff remark, and I would ask that you publicly correct this so as not to mislead others.
Regarding the remainder of your article, I find that it fails to make a salient point because the entire thesis is flawed. You operate from a perspective that treats the whole of mankind as an entity rather than seeing that society is simply the aggregate collection of a number of individuals. It is possible for individuals to experience a mental disorder which could be categorized as "bipolar", because an individual has an organic brain which functions with a specific nature and that brain is potentially susceptible to such a condition which we identify as a deviating illness from its normal function. However, you then leap from this fact to make an observation, which wavers between the metaphorical and the literal, about society at large exhibiting "bipolar" abnormalities. This is clearly nonsense. Society has no brain, no will and no purpose. These are strictly attributes of the individual. What you classify as our cultural bipolar disorder is nothing more than a recognition of the fact that a large number of individuals in our society stand in serious opposition to the views and goals that you appear to unquestioningly accept as obviously right. Well, that may be true, but it does not indicate a social disorder. Instead, it indicates that many individuals choose to stand up for their right to proclaim sole dominion over their own lives; to accept responsibility for choosing their own goals and pursuing those goals in a manner determined by their own independent judgment.
When you say:
"[...] lacking the social consciousness that is the tie that binds each of us to another."
or:
"Sadder still is the loss of tolerance and sense of belonging to a larger community to which each citizen owes his utter allegiance."
you clearly demonstrate your disposition to devalue the individual and treat the collective group as the social "unit" to which all must be "bound" together in "utter allegiance". The rest of your argument is simply the mumbo jumbo hand-waving that is so typically offered to distract the individual victims from realizing that they are being cast into servitude in the name of some "higher purpose". And this was one of the great observation made by Ayn Rand. As she said, it is a very old story that has been playing itself out throughout human history. It is the struggle of individualism versus collectivism - which means the struggle between freedom and slavery. It makes no difference whether the "master" is a group such as the church, the state, "society", a union, or an individual such as a plantation owner, the issue remains the same. I, like all other individuals, retain ownership of my own life and I grant no one else the right to dispose of it in any way or by any means. And to paraphrase Patrick Henry, if this view is bipolar, make the most of it!
Regards, -- C. Jeffery Small
supermario
· 3 months ago
"If by "greed", you mean a self-interested desire to accept responsibility for achieving results and obtain goods that further one's life, than I would classify this as a very good thing, and you would be correct is ascribing to Ayn Rand her classification of this as a virtue."
Obviously he didn't mean "a self-interested desire to accept responsibility for achieving results and obtain goods that further one's life" when he used the term greed. Because that is not what greed means. If Ayn Rand used "greed" in this way then she simply redefined the word to confuse the issue. Greed is by it's very definition "irrational desire for an insatiable acquisition of goods." This is bad....so greed is bad.
"You operate from a perspective that treats the whole of mankind as an entity rather than seeing that society is simply the aggregate collection of a number of individuals."
"It is the struggle of individualism versus collectivism - which means the struggle between freedom and slavery."
Not really. Not at all. We are not "simply the aggregate collection of a number of individuals" nor is it, only, "the struggle of individualism versus collectivism" because human beings are BOTH individuals AND a collective. To neglect either dimension is silly.
mauricefprout
· 1 month ago
Who can define the meaning of being normal? I believe there is no possibility to create a parameter in such a diverse society. We do follow some patterns inhered in our learning and social interaction, which can be also called morality, social norms or behavioral standards. But when it comes to define what is or what is not normal, perspectives can get ambiguous and contradictory. As individuals we each decide what we consider normal, and that usually happens according to the associations that we’ve learned though life. This can be also explained by the behaviorism theory and cognitive science, an interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence that approach our learning perspectives. This topic was vastly approached by Dr. Maurice Prout, psychologist and Ph.D. with expertise in cognitive behavioral therapy. Many of his articles and publications (which can be found at www.MauriceProutphd.com), deepens this theme and also gives many interesting studies on psychological disorders.
All Comments
You state:
"In a culture which is built on the assumption that greed is good (Thanks a lot for that, Ayn Rand), antisocial behavior becomes not only tolerated but encouraged by many citizens."
People mean many different things when they use the term "greed", and as you do not define your usage in this quote, it is difficult to know exactly what you intended. If by "greed", you mean a self-interested desire to accept responsibility for achieving results and obtain goods that further one's life, than I would classify this as a very good thing, and you would be correct is ascribing to Ayn Rand her classification of this as a virtue. On the other hand, if by greed you mean an irrational desire for an insatiable acquisition of goods obtained by any means, including through the violation of the rights of others, then you couldn't be more wrong in attributing this view to Rand. Your failure to make a clear distinction between these two drastically different views of the concept "greed", coupled with the fact that it is the later definition which most people will assume applies here, results in a gross misrepresentation of Rand's views by your off-the-cuff remark, and I would ask that you publicly correct this so as not to mislead others.
Regarding the remainder of your article, I find that it fails to make a salient point because the entire thesis is flawed. You operate from a perspective that treats the whole of mankind as an entity rather than seeing that society is simply the aggregate collection of a number of
individuals. It is possible for individuals to experience a mental disorder which could be categorized as "bipolar", because an individual has an organic brain which functions with a specific nature and that brain is potentially susceptible to such a condition which we identify as a deviating illness from its normal function. However, you then leap from this fact to make an observation, which wavers between the metaphorical and the literal, about society at large exhibiting "bipolar" abnormalities. This is clearly nonsense. Society has no brain, no will and no purpose. These are strictly attributes of the individual. What you classify as
our cultural bipolar disorder is nothing more than a recognition of the fact that a large number of individuals in our society stand in serious opposition to the views and goals that you appear to unquestioningly accept as obviously right. Well, that may be true, but it does not indicate a social disorder. Instead, it indicates that many individuals choose to stand up for their right to proclaim sole dominion over their own lives; to accept responsibility for choosing their own goals and pursuing those goals in a manner determined by their own independent judgment.
When you say:
"[...] lacking the social consciousness that is the tie that binds each of us to another."
or:
"Sadder still is the loss of tolerance and sense of belonging to a larger community to which each citizen owes his utter allegiance."
you clearly demonstrate your disposition to devalue the individual and treat the collective group as the social "unit" to which all must be "bound" together in "utter allegiance". The rest of your argument is simply the mumbo jumbo hand-waving that is so typically offered to distract the individual victims from realizing that they are being cast into servitude in the name of some "higher purpose". And this was one of the great observation made by Ayn Rand. As she said, it is a very old story that has been playing itself out throughout human history. It is the struggle of individualism versus collectivism - which means the struggle between freedom and slavery. It makes no difference whether the "master" is a group such as the church, the state, "society", a union, or an individual such as a plantation owner, the issue remains the same. I, like all other individuals, retain ownership of my own life and I grant no one else the right to dispose of it in any way or by any means. And to paraphrase Patrick Henry, if this view is bipolar, make the most of it!
Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small
Obviously he didn't mean "a self-interested desire to accept responsibility for achieving results and obtain goods that further one's life" when he used the term greed. Because that is not what greed means. If Ayn Rand used "greed" in this way then she simply redefined the word to confuse the issue. Greed is by it's very definition "irrational desire for an insatiable acquisition of goods." This is bad....so greed is bad.
"You operate from a perspective that treats the whole of mankind as an entity rather than seeing that society is simply the aggregate collection of a number of
individuals."
"It is the struggle of individualism versus collectivism - which means the struggle between freedom and slavery."
Not really. Not at all. We are not "simply the aggregate collection of a number of individuals" nor is it, only, "the struggle of individualism versus collectivism" because human beings are BOTH individuals AND a collective. To neglect either dimension is silly.