I do not believe that Kino was acting out of selflessness whatsoever in the Pearl. He was trying to sell the pearl in order to benefit himself and his family. Kino set out with no intent to hurt anyone, simply to sell something that would bring greater wealth to his family, and even though he was helping his wife and son as well as himself, he seemed somewhat uninterested in the well-being of others. He may not have cared if his child could attend school, if he wasn't his child, who's happiness and success would be directly linked to his own. Kino had no plans to use his potential profit to start a charity for those who he wasn't obliged to support, at least the book never mentioned such. Although Kino had no negative aspirations or any premonitions of what was to come, his quest for "good" ended very badly. It seems everyone involved in the story would have been better off if Kino had never found the pearl. I sensed that Kino came to this realisation as they returned to thier village, resulting in his disowning of the pearl, even though Juana pressured him to di it beforehand. At times in the story, we also started to see a darker (evil???) side to Kino caused by his aspirations revolving the pearl.
I think the pearl is an example of a story where the protagonist is unable to fullfill his aspirations rendering the sacrifices made on the journey unnecessary. A journey where the hero would have been better off never accepting his call to adventure, even if he didn't know how bad it would end up at the time of the call. Throughout every journey evil is faced, in some cases evil even emerges, but in most ficticious journeys more good than evil is created in the end. Kino never found the good he was chasing, instead only receiving the horrible with no reward (his baby died for what was ultimately nothing!). All of the sacrifices they made were in vain as nothing good came out of thier quest for potential good.
Going back to what I mentionned near the beggining of the post, even though I don't believe that Kino and Juana acted out of selflessness, I persoanally believe that acting selflessly (whilst also respecting yourself) is true virtue. I see helping others solely to get something in return as manipulation, but doing it out of true compassion for that person is true inner virtue. It is very difficult for anybody but you to understand your motives, but to me virtue goes beyond doing good deeds and is directly linked to a person's drive to do them. Virtue is complex and difficult to identify. Buying a burger for someone so it increases your chance of cheating off them on school work, is not true virtue, even if it had cheese! Running into the World Trade Centre on 9/11 to save people they'd never even met, knowing full-well that they'd be risking thier lives doing so expressed true virtue on the part of the 9/11 firefighters.
Were the protagonists virtuous on thier journey in "The Pearl"? According to my own definition of virtue, I would probably place them in somewhat of a gray area, leaning slightly towards "No".
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Response to "Anthem" by Ayn Rand
As a Socialist I completely dissagree with Ayn Rand's capitalistic views. In my opinion Ayn Rand shouldn't even be taken too seriously as a philosopher as she has an extreme personal bias against "left" views and opinions. Much of this bias is due to her poor personal experience with communism, and she seems to believe that the only other option is libertarianism. Ayn Rand had a very black and white, unrealistic view on politics. To her there are two options; complete libertarianism or harsh communism. As we've concluded, Ayn Rand thinks that everyone would be better off if everyone thought only of themselves, first and foremost. I get the impression that many of her fellow libertarians promote this idea because they assume that they would end up on top. The chances of this happening are slight at best. In reality what happens is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle-class dissapear into poverty. As a whole only a tiny percent of the population would actually benefit... until everyone else revolts.
If everyone is concerned solely with thier own views than who will help them reach the top. The world would turn into a huge battle-royale that nobody wins. If people like Ayn Rand would actually open thier eyes they may notice that many of the world's happiest countries are indeed socialist (scandinavia, 'nuff said). This idea of selfish-ness is also immoral, it is a vision where very few live extremely well, with the majority left suffering in poverty, with no social programs to boot.
To make her views even more ridiculous, if her greed-fueled followers would actually think about the future they might just realise that libertarianism is ultimately bad and unsustainable for business. In a socialist nation, people still have enough money to spend on products, meaning that even if you have to pay everyone a bit more they will have more disposible income. That was Henry Ford's philosophy, who with it made millions upon millions, whilst paying his employees enough to live decent lifes. Everyone won, and that is the goal of socialism. Note, how I am NOT endorsing communism. Socialism endorses that everyone was born equal, but everybody wasn't born the same. In communism, people will have less work initiative, why should they? They have no oppportunity for financial improvement. In socialism they do, whilst ensuring that everyone can live good lives. Just because someone doesn't have as much education as someone else, doesn't mean that they don't put in the same amount of work hours. Every (legal) job is important, so why should we force honest workers to live in poverty. I could literally be at my computer all night, typing away about why Ayn Rand's views are both un-ethical and un-intelligent, but I know we all have other things to do.
To answer the question of whether the statement still carries relevence, I would say not, or atleast it shouldn't. As I previously mentioned, there are endless examples where capitaism has failed, yet fewer where socialism and other left-wing options have. Equality-72521 is clearly living in an extreme, ad absurdum communist world where ideas are not welcomely accepted, requiring people to break free of the rules to create potentially positive change. However, in the real world (which she insists is communist) if businesses are free of regulations than they may start emploiting people. Afterall, the sole purpose of a business is to make a profit.
In conclusion Ayn Rand was a possibly sociapathic radicalist, who's world views are no longer relevent (not that they ever should have been), as they are impractical, immoral, and un-wise.
I don't mean to kick the dead horse, but Anthem was an bad book to boot.
"Happiness is only real when shared," -Christopher McCandless
If everyone is concerned solely with thier own views than who will help them reach the top. The world would turn into a huge battle-royale that nobody wins. If people like Ayn Rand would actually open thier eyes they may notice that many of the world's happiest countries are indeed socialist (scandinavia, 'nuff said). This idea of selfish-ness is also immoral, it is a vision where very few live extremely well, with the majority left suffering in poverty, with no social programs to boot.
To make her views even more ridiculous, if her greed-fueled followers would actually think about the future they might just realise that libertarianism is ultimately bad and unsustainable for business. In a socialist nation, people still have enough money to spend on products, meaning that even if you have to pay everyone a bit more they will have more disposible income. That was Henry Ford's philosophy, who with it made millions upon millions, whilst paying his employees enough to live decent lifes. Everyone won, and that is the goal of socialism. Note, how I am NOT endorsing communism. Socialism endorses that everyone was born equal, but everybody wasn't born the same. In communism, people will have less work initiative, why should they? They have no oppportunity for financial improvement. In socialism they do, whilst ensuring that everyone can live good lives. Just because someone doesn't have as much education as someone else, doesn't mean that they don't put in the same amount of work hours. Every (legal) job is important, so why should we force honest workers to live in poverty. I could literally be at my computer all night, typing away about why Ayn Rand's views are both un-ethical and un-intelligent, but I know we all have other things to do.
To answer the question of whether the statement still carries relevence, I would say not, or atleast it shouldn't. As I previously mentioned, there are endless examples where capitaism has failed, yet fewer where socialism and other left-wing options have. Equality-72521 is clearly living in an extreme, ad absurdum communist world where ideas are not welcomely accepted, requiring people to break free of the rules to create potentially positive change. However, in the real world (which she insists is communist) if businesses are free of regulations than they may start emploiting people. Afterall, the sole purpose of a business is to make a profit.
In conclusion Ayn Rand was a possibly sociapathic radicalist, who's world views are no longer relevent (not that they ever should have been), as they are impractical, immoral, and un-wise.
I don't mean to kick the dead horse, but Anthem was an bad book to boot.
"Happiness is only real when shared," -Christopher McCandless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)