Quote from
peter on October 14, 2020, 10:11 pm
1. Introduction
The concept of enlightened collaboration is central to this page. The similar concept of «enlightened self-interest» is something that has occupied me for a while. In the following I will contrast the concept shortly with some other world-views/ethics, and then I will go into how we can go about putting this theory into life.
2. Enlightened self-interest and other world-views/ethics:
Enlightened self-interest is different from altruism in all its forms, whether it be what Nietzsche calls protestant slave morality or socialist neo-marxist political correctness to name two important examples.
Enlightened self-interest is also different from Machiavellianism as this page points out. Enlightened self-interest is more noble, and while it aims for mastery, excellence and «the good life» as per the ancient Greco-roman cultures, it does not sink into Machiavellian pettyness. I find this article to be a good primer on the difference between these ethics: «A QUESTION OF CHARACTER: The Objectivist Versus The Machiavellian»
https://www.mikementzer.com/character.htmlIn short: enlightened self-interest is about win-win. It is not about sacrificing oneself to others (protestant slave morality) or to sacrifice others to oneself (Machiavellianism, Fascism).
3. How to make enlightened self-interest one’s way of life
If we are raised in a traditional or conservative home, we might've been raised to be meek and obedient altruists. Or perhaps we rebelled and went our own way. We were appreciated for obedience rather than for spontaneity, independence and being loved in an enlightened self-interested way. So what is needed is new reference experiences where we see that people value us for who we are in ourselves - who we are when we pursue our enlightened self-interest! This will make us strong, and we can stop feeling that our only worth is our will to submission. In short, we need to learn selfish love.
Ayn Rand describes this kind of love, which she has based in part on Aristotle's view of friendship:
"One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.
A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.
Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies."
Michael Hurd describes how to do this:
Erroneous core beliefs which inhibit psychological intimacy and closeness:
1. The idea that "I must perform" in a social interaction rather than simply discuss what's of interest to myself and see if the other party has the same interests/values.
2. The idea that "I must be seen as good and worthwhile" rather than "I want to find a good match" either friendship-wise or romance-wise.
3. The idea that "I am somehow psychologically defective because of my shyness/inhibitions" rather than recognizing that nearly everybody feels these vulnerabilities, at some time and to some degree.
4. The idea that friendship should happen easily and all at once, and that if it doesn't it is "a personal reflection on myself and the fact that I'm never going to find what I want." In reality, you can go months or even years without success in finding a good match, and then "hit the jackpot" and find 2 potentially life-long friends at one time; in other words, the value of friendship/love does not usually happen in nice, evenly spaced out segments -- not for anyone.
For more, I can recommend Nathaniel Branden's great book "Honoring the self". Especially chapter 12: Rational selfishness. [Both Aristotle and Branden are more prosocial than Rand, and I recommend supplementing her work with them].
1. Introduction
The concept of enlightened collaboration is central to this page. The similar concept of «enlightened self-interest» is something that has occupied me for a while. In the following I will contrast the concept shortly with some other world-views/ethics, and then I will go into how we can go about putting this theory into life.
2. Enlightened self-interest and other world-views/ethics:
Enlightened self-interest is different from altruism in all its forms, whether it be what Nietzsche calls protestant slave morality or socialist neo-marxist political correctness to name two important examples.
Enlightened self-interest is also different from Machiavellianism as this page points out. Enlightened self-interest is more noble, and while it aims for mastery, excellence and «the good life» as per the ancient Greco-roman cultures, it does not sink into Machiavellian pettyness. I find this article to be a good primer on the difference between these ethics: «A QUESTION OF CHARACTER: The Objectivist Versus The Machiavellian»
https://www.mikementzer.com/character.htmlIn short: enlightened self-interest is about win-win. It is not about sacrificing oneself to others (protestant slave morality) or to sacrifice others to oneself (Machiavellianism, Fascism).
3. How to make enlightened self-interest one’s way of life
If we are raised in a traditional or conservative home, we might've been raised to be meek and obedient altruists. Or perhaps we rebelled and went our own way. We were appreciated for obedience rather than for spontaneity, independence and being loved in an enlightened self-interested way. So what is needed is new reference experiences where we see that people value us for who we are in ourselves - who we are when we pursue our enlightened self-interest! This will make us strong, and we can stop feeling that our only worth is our will to submission. In short, we need to learn selfish love.
Ayn Rand describes this kind of love, which she has based in part on Aristotle's view of friendship:
"One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.
A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.
Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies."
Michael Hurd describes how to do this:
Erroneous core beliefs which inhibit psychological intimacy and closeness:
1. The idea that "I must perform" in a social interaction rather than simply discuss what's of interest to myself and see if the other party has the same interests/values.
2. The idea that "I must be seen as good and worthwhile" rather than "I want to find a good match" either friendship-wise or romance-wise.
3. The idea that "I am somehow psychologically defective because of my shyness/inhibitions" rather than recognizing that nearly everybody feels these vulnerabilities, at some time and to some degree.
4. The idea that friendship should happen easily and all at once, and that if it doesn't it is "a personal reflection on myself and the fact that I'm never going to find what I want." In reality, you can go months or even years without success in finding a good match, and then "hit the jackpot" and find 2 potentially life-long friends at one time; in other words, the value of friendship/love does not usually happen in nice, evenly spaced out segments -- not for anyone.
For more, I can recommend Nathaniel Branden's great book "Honoring the self". Especially chapter 12: Rational selfishness. [Both Aristotle and Branden are more prosocial than Rand, and I recommend supplementing her work with them].
Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and 2 other users have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew WhitewoodselffriendSerena Irina
