Human nature is irrational; and to force individuals who’ve been bound to rationalism to let go of rational actions and seek personal freedom is only going to create mass suffering for those who cannot think in the same selfish and righteous way of Equality. Equality has good meaning in his ideals; however it is easy to subjectively ignore that there is possibility that others may from even actions intended to free them to seek happiness. Ideally a world would exist where all could live together in peace, where all could respect one another’s happiness; but due to the inherently subjective way humans interact with the surrounding world, it is merely impossible for such a world to exist. Rules only seek to try to build such a world; but it’s impossible for
That being said, someone can have selfish moments while still being a good person and caring for others. There doesn't have to be polar opposites when it comes to selfishness versus selflessness. There's so much emphasis on putting others before oneself that people often forget to look out for their own needs, as shown in this book. Ayn Rand successfully captures the negatives of an overrated ideology and presents an unorthodox perspective on the matter. In conclusion, Equality's true motives behind his work are much more selfish than they first appear to be.
The beneficial side of ego is that it “constitutes the essential identity of a human being” (Rand Introduction) but the detrimental side, according to visionlaunch.com, is that it can “completely eliminate objectivity”. If people didn’t care for themselves, then they wouldn’t know how to care for others and vice
However, humans desire to physically do certain activities rather than simply having the experience of doing them. 3. Therefore, the theory of hedonism is inaccurate. Nozick’s argument against the theory of hedonism is flawed because humans are able to gain as much pleasure in reality as from the experience machine. This flaw is damaging to Nozick’s argument because it does not precisely disprove the theory of hedonism; the fact that most would prefer to execute their
How come one who has been so conscious of the mistake of others make the same one by trying to avoid it? In my opinion, it has something to do with their assumption on the relationship between emotion and outcome. Over-simplifying again, positive psychologists subtly assume that positive emotion will lead to positive outcome, and vice versa. As a result, they suggested the “old-school” psychology failed to appreciate human motivation to thrive, and by focusing positive side of everything, positive outcome will eventually be attained. In fact, positive emotions are not completely ignored by other psychologists; they are just not standing under the spotlight among everything else crucial to us.
Why should one live a life focusing on avoiding pain when one can live a life focusing on how to make the life better and live the good life? Epicurus would say that living a thrilling life would equal too much pain and therefore it would not be worth living. However, living a thrilling life might add more pleasure than pain if you look at Augustine’s scale. According to Epicurus, there is no such thing as living a more pleasurable life, because pleasure cannot be measured, but if it could an exciting life would likely be more interesting than a boring
You create a relationship founded on coercion. The people you guilted into a decision may give you what you want, but they have very little respect for how you achieved what you got. And the more this practice is on display the greater the gulf between the relationship
The problem with this model is that it doesn’t take into account any other factors that can be the cause of unemployment. That proves that even those models that are valued a lot and considered to be almost certain can still be vague enough to not fully trust it. In response to the counter claim, as mentioned before, models are not supposed to be perfect. They can contain mistakes that can be fixed and polished over time as they are noticed. This is why also the Keynesian model shouldn’t be judged as being completely wrong right away, because just like a model is supposed to do, it helps us in understanding a difficult concept and presents it in a simplified form that everyone can
In “Heloise & Abelard: Love Hurts”, Cristina Nehring points out that people today do not value romanticism as an admirable element of love, but become more self-centered and try to avoid hurts that love is attached to. People think romanticism is archaic. Therefore, Nehring illustrates that, “The story of Abelard and Heloise hardly resonates with the spirit of our age.” However, I disagree with Nehring’s point. Love is an emotion which rationality can hardly control. Even if the importance of rationality and the one of emotion become a disproportion in the process of decision making, people still need to go through the process of choosing and the procedure hurts feelings.
In many cultures technology is considered unnecessary, and defies belief of staying within the guidelines of cultural backgrounds. The thought process is that by limiting exposure to technology keeps predators at bay. Societal acceptance is very hard to achieve in many areas, especially with the negative impacts that come with opening doors for technology growth. However, technology is not all negative; it can definitely improve processes, deliver communication at the speed of light, and offer easier more convenient methods. Depending on a culture’s aspect of what technology can offer as being successful or detrimental will be the determining factor in acceptance or rejection.