Comments on POOEY, POOEY -- THE EVILS OF ELSWORTH TOOHEY

Go to Random Acts of Kindness - Add a comment - Go to POOEY, POOEY -- THE EVILS OF ELSWORTH TOOHEY

Westwend

Good points, seriously good question.   Be sure and let me know if and when you write a post about it.   Thanks for writing.

posted by Tremac on May 13, 2004 at 7:47 PM | link to this | reply

westend, yep, you remembered right. If you think about it, POWER is at the

root of whether something remains in the collective or the individual.  Who will retain the power?

posted by Ariala on May 13, 2004 at 2:24 PM | link to this | reply

yeah, I remember that

It's been so long, I almost forgot.
Roarke was sort of taken from Frank Lloyd Wright and the skyscraper, I guess is sort of like the Empire State Building.
so here I go commiserating (sp) again -- I like that word, and I'm probably using it wrong and they say the best way to look like an idiot is to use a word wrong. Gotta check my Webster's.
Human society has been wrung around in certain people's quest for power -- monarchy, democracy, republic, communism, whatever form of government -- no matter the ideals, people questing power attempt to wrest the power of government to themselves, diluting the high ideals of the vision of any governmental systems founders.
I don't think it's a matter of individualism vs. collectivism so much as it's a matter of power.
Although collectivism as it has been practiced in the USSR squelched the creativity of individual genius in subjugation to The State.
A lot of it I think has to do with the loss of Community.
Governments are so big, impersonal and remote from the average person that we all are alienated from them.
A government based upon community would be best -- where the whole would be like a big family -- or similar to tribal relationships, the smaller units.
genius and individualism would be rewarded, and the individuals would feel a greater sense of self-worth, and responsibility toward the community as a whole.
Just an outline here -- food for thought.
when will it happen?
when will they ever learn?

posted by Xeno-x on May 13, 2004 at 2:14 PM | link to this | reply

ExStud, sometimes in life there are sacrifices that need to be made that go

right up against our personal goals and sometimes our selfishness.  She did not see it as noble for one person to lay down their life for another, as Jesus did for man, for example.  She, of course, rejects that and sees it as the ultimate evil.  I totally disagree with her there.  I agree with some of what you're saying, but not all...guess that's why I'm a Christian and not a Randian.

posted by Ariala on May 13, 2004 at 10:28 AM | link to this | reply

Ariala, thanks for writing this post...it's so nice to share thoughts with

other people familiar with Rand's work. So few people are well-versed in any philosophy at all, let alone Rand specifically.

In defense of Rand's anti-altruism, however, I will point to her very specific definition of altruism; that is, the sacrifice of one's own interests to the interests of others. Lending a helping hand at no serious cost to oneself is not altruism, and Rand did not object to such help. She just rejected the idea that one devote his/her entire life to charity. In THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, she goes so far as to assert that one may risk one's life in aid to a loved one or good friend. She even makes allowances for help to a complete stranger -- if that stranger is at the moment completely helpless and in an emergency situation, such as hunger, poverty, and sickness. She just rejected the idea that one drop everything and devote his/her life to the aid of such a helpless person. For example, how many people out there give up their dreams to care for their ailing parents in old age? Or give up their desired career to satisfy their parents desires at the expense of their own? I think that is what Rand objected to, not any and all charity.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 13, 2004 at 10:22 AM | link to this | reply

Tremacc,

I'm sure I will!  I think I'll go to Amazon and order it.  Along with a book my mother owned called "How to Conquer Clutter".  It's hard to think deep thoughts when you're knee deep in junk you don't need!  hehe.

posted by myrrhage_ on May 12, 2004 at 9:20 PM | link to this | reply

Back atcha Ariala.    Meriamne, for the most part I think you will like this author's work.

posted by Tremac on May 12, 2004 at 9:15 PM | link to this | reply

Amazing...

You did a fabulous job presenting your thoughts, Ariala.

I must read this book!  It seems that history repeats itself, over and over.  We are headed even deeper down the black hole of mob mentality than we ever have before.  It scares me sometimes...

posted by myrrhage_ on May 12, 2004 at 9:05 PM | link to this | reply

Tremacc, thanks for asking me to write something...It was fun taking a look

back in time...

posted by Ariala on May 12, 2004 at 9:01 PM | link to this | reply

For me?

Yes, Ariala.   Nice spill on Toohey.    Thank you very much    I mentioned him because he was such a huge, focal part of the conflict in that book.     I like the duality of  the characters, even Toohey and the conflict that they represent in the world and in Rand's own life.       This is what I was referring to about Rand's communistic background influencing her views both positively and negatively.   I don't think that the idea of invidualism and collectivism was so cut and dried with her, she was just trying to define a gray area.    I think she bounced off of that whole idea that like and equal are not the same thing.  Reading about her later in life, I think she struggled with her thoughts and beliefs about altruism and objectivism through to the end.   Good post.   Thanks again. 

posted by Tremac on May 12, 2004 at 8:59 PM | link to this | reply

Tremacc, are you around? You asked for something on Toohey, here it is :-)

posted by Ariala on May 12, 2004 at 4:59 PM | link to this | reply