+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Spiritual Development & Metaphysical Matters (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Ayn Rand Vs. The Law of One (/showthread.php?tid=6821)
Ayn Rand Vs. The Law of One - Adonai One - 03-20-2013
My 13 year-old-self from a bygone era of atheistic nihilism and rugged individualism compels me to make this comparison. How does this woman's philosophy compare to The Law of One's definition of love? I find myself curious. What are your thoughts on her words in contrast to what we know as love? Is it strictly STS or is there more?
"To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."
- From her book The Virtue of Selfishness (Yes, I'm serious. That's the title.)
"[Selfless love] would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."
Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964
"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."
- The Virtue of Selfishness
More of her philosophy in tidbits here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html
RE: Ayn Rand Vs. The Law of One - Marc - 03-20-2013
This person is right although with her versions of distortion. There is only one infinite creator and to love others is to love the self. It would seem that she views each individual as separate and in doing so results in her philosophy. With the concept of the Law of One all of this falls into place. The Law of One puts all things together and creates light rather than just colors. This philosophy is a certain color of the white light of love.
RE: Ayn Rand Vs. The Law of One - reeay - 03-20-2013
Many of our philosophies are tied into the life experience or autobiography of the philosopher, and in our archetypal mind, maybe. The curiosity for me becomes what Ayn Rand experienced in her life (e.g., her experience with communism) that lead her to understand the way she understands what she's talking about.
RE: Ayn Rand Vs. The Law of One - Adonai One - 03-20-2013
(03-20-2013, 04:10 PM)rie Wrote: Many of our philosophies are tied into the life experience or autobiography of the philosopher, and in our archetypal mind, maybe. The curiosity for me becomes what Ayn Rand experienced in her life (e.g., her experience with communism) that lead her to understand the way she understands what she's talking about.
She left the Soviet Union as a young girl after the Bolsheviks continually seized her father's businesses and her family's property. She pursued theatrical work in America. She had a stint in Existentialism and adored Nietzsche at one point. During this time she praised a Rapist and Serial Killer in a editorial of hers. However, she came to pretend this never happened and probably would not espouse the same opinion in her later years. In fact, she later called Nietzsche a "mystic". I forget the reasoning. I think it's apparent she had a deep philosophical struggle with life. She didn't like grey areas, she wanted stability. That's why she declared Aristotle as the only philosopher worth following.
Let's say I've been influenced by both philosophers and still have a deep respect for what they came to believe while being underneath the thick veil we have to live under.