Hopefully used the quote function correctly and it works.
I think you would agree, based on the comment I said I didn’t disagree with, that nonnarcissistic self-love is not selfishness, which does not properly recognize the personhood of the other (or the same-levelness of the personhood of both the self and the other). Ayn Rand thought some deem all self-love as selfishness, and she deemed all altruism (selflessness) as either self-hate or masked self-love.
Now. What do you think about that? Was she correct?
If she asserted that some people think self-love is selfishness, I agree with her. Some people think that.
I don’t think altruism is selflessness (not sure if that is her belief or supposedly a general belief. In any case I don’t agree with that part. I don’t see altruism as either self-hate or masked self-love. So, I would disagree with her there. Though I think there’s an implicit false dichotomy there. It seems to imply that if there is self-love present that it isn’t love/empathy care for others. That these are mutually exclusive.
First, see my last reply. Secondly, you don’t even need to “feel” empathy in order to treat a person as a person. All you need to do is have a conversation with them and ask them how they want to be treated, and then do the golden rule part about if their personal preference conflicts with recognizing the personhood of every person. If not, give it a go. Basically that is the categorical imperative. Or to put it a better way. The categorical imperative is the golden rule. It’s interesting how you can perform this function even if your affective state is not conducive to empathy. Not all function is associated with an affective state. That’s because when we say/recognize every person is a person, we’re just making a logical deduction. It feels good to avoid cognitive distortion and maintain congruence with reality. However, there are competing passions. And that’s why we have ego defense mechanisms when we diverge from reality.
[This reminds me of theories that say that some disorders involve a lack of empathy. Like they don’t even have empathy for their own selves and that’s why they have (unintentionally?—so self is not a “target”?) self-destructive behaviors. But if the person is just more other-focused than the societal norm, perhaps their “masochism” has just been misinterpreted as “self-hate”? Imagine if that person is not the kind of “social justice warrior” the culture expects? For example, they are very pro-life but they also empathize with people on the border. They have conservative values about gender, but they themselves appear androgynous according to cultural norms. I bet those observing them have a very fun time trying to figure them out. Especially if they are hard to really draw out in one-on-one conversations? I can’t think of anyone who is like that. I’m just talking hypothetically.]
Sure, but you might still be a psychopath. You treat them like a person to get them to do things you want them to do.
I agree, but then it’s best not to use internal state words like self-love, self-hate, empathy or selfishness if one only wants to focus on behavior. This would also include complex descriptions like narcissism where they cover attitudes and affective states, in addition to behavior.
I don’t really know what selflessness means. There always seem to be a self there in any interaction between people on both sides of that interaction. But I see someone in need. I’m late for work and worried that my boss will be angry alread, but I see the old man, lying by the curb, not able to get up. I feel bad/concerned for him. My self has those feelings. I feel those things. I walk over, help him up, find that he should be helped home. It takes time. I am late and concerned about that but my values, my self, my feelings guide me to help him. I hope that later I can explain this to my boss, that part of my lateness was due to this situation, though not all. He’s a dick, so I’m not optimistic. A self with desires, values, concerns was present all through the process on my side and likely on the old man’s side. Two selves met and did what they wanted to do in a given situation. I think the moment you start framing being kind to others from your own concerns and empathy as not having a self, you are doing damage. And it makes it sound like you have to suppress yourself. Of course many people do this. They do things out of guilt or because they are supposed to. I’m glad for the old men they help, but it’s an odd model and goal.
Some may then say that really I was selfish. I think that’s confused also. That’s a perjorative term that means one doesn’t consider what others need or want.
So selflessness means they do (consider what others may need or want). It doesn’t mean they hate themselves in an inhumane way. Like those with a guilt complex who are easily manipulated out of their money.
Dying to self involves things like killing selfish impulses, or digging up root causes of things like guilt complexes (as opposed to appropriate remorse).
Any act that treats someone the way they want to be treated in order to get something from them (other than the joy of helping them get what they need) is “masked” selfishness. Do we call that psychopathic, or just immoral? Ayn Rand calls it (altruism with self-interested motives…she doesn’t see any other kind) a fake selflessness. She doesn’t think there is genuine selflessness. And somehow, ironically…she sees it as self-hating, because she thinks it guilts people, none of whom (to her) are genuinely selfless/altruistic, including those who practice rational self-interest. She was right about masked selfishness, but wrong about genuine selflessness. And it’s wrong to call other-focused joy “selfish” and to say rational self-interest that is other-focused is a “virtuous” selfishness. It isn’t selfishness at all. She makes profiteering without regard for others look good by spinning people around in a semantic whirlwind.
And what if one does have buy-in other than the empathic joy of others’ needs being met? Is it automatically selfish like Rand suggests? No more than unintended negative consequences, even if foreseen, that could not have been avoided, make an act immoral—despite the fact that intending them WOULD have definitely been immoral. Was the buy-in intended? Was it avoidable? Rand would not counsel someone to check their motives there.
But… she DID contrast that against the Nietzschean brute
Well, as I said, I don’t understand that word. You start your response to me with ‘So’ which makes it seem like I’ve said what follows. If they really think they are selfless, and that’s a good thing, yeah, I probably consider that self-hate. I think a lot of the spiritualities and moral systems that try to get people to be selfless or have no ego are teaching people to hate themselves. There seem to be many interpretations of that word ‘selfless’ but generally I’d be wary of anyone telling me or someone I cared about that it’s good to be selfless.
They might happen to mean something that wouldn’t bother me, but I’d suggest they are using a poor word for whatever that would be.
I don’t know what dying to self is. If people want to kill what they consider selfish impulses, well their free to do that obviously. But I see no reason to kill impulses. Yes, if you want to be violent don’t act out the impulse - unless you are defending yourself. But I would try to find out more about where this impulse is coming from.
I’m not sure what genuine selfishness is. But it seems like she thought that everything was focused on self-gain, which I think is confused.
As suggested in the OP, there is an essential distinction between healthy self-regard and an inflated sense of self-importance. Self-love, at its core, is about self-acceptance, compassion, and valuing one’s well-being. So, it means recognising your inherent worth without needing external validation, allowing you to navigate life with resilience and self-respect. This form of love encourages setting boundaries, healing, and growth, fostering healthier relationships with others.
On the other hand, narcissism distorts self-love into self-obsession and entitlement. Narcissism lacks genuine empathy and becomes focused on elevating oneself at the expense of others. It is an exaggerated self-focus where external approval is constantly sought to uphold an inflated image, often leading to manipulative behaviours and an inability to form authentic connections.
I’d differentiate in this way:
Self-love encourages balance, humility, and self-reflection, which help manage the difficult realities of life without being consumed by them. It also opens up a pathway for compassion toward others.
Narcissism is driven by ego and a desire to maintain superiority, which isolates individuals from the needs and feelings of those around them.
As the OP distinguished, self-love, when understood properly, is essential for maintaining emotional health and integrity. It isn’t about indulging in superficial feel-good sentiments but about cultivating a balanced relationship with yourself so you can face challenges without becoming self-destructive or overly reliant on others’ validation. It’s more about inner strength than external admiration.
Lovely
The write up is so authentic and acceptable. I felt as if @Bob is pronouncing the last word on this thread ! .
My idea of loving yourself grew up from stopping hating yourself. When I go down the memory lane I first toyed with the idea was committing suicide, when I was of less than 10 years old . The reason too was mundane and senseless, not being able to complete the school homework using red and blue pens ! Since then a conflict between love yourself and hate yourself always played in the backend of mind chatter . Loving yourself requires lots intellect, mental strength and observation surroundings particularly of hopeless and successful people ( by your worldly standard , as prior to teens railway engine driver of the Guard in immaculate white almost look heavenly guys ) .
Loving yourself is, I can say is an essential ingredient of your personality, helping you to survive in an healthy way ! Most challenging part is separating “ truely loving yourself “ self flattery that goes on in unceasing mind chatter .
Sometimes the cover of innoscence delayed , with hidden cover almost enigmatically unknown , grows even though the intention is hidden.
Mwhat works in childhood wears thin blooming flowers of evil
Then the blossomed spread fragrance to Buddhic lands and then steal even a look, has some hidden object, a trifle picked up in a holy square to test
And Catholic guilt confesses to another human only human reassurance it gives of the impossibility of guilt not having been preempted.
()()()
That which still grows, to crisis comes when that look stolen like a kiss, aggrieved becomes as all begotten were no gifts of inheritance, and my young attempts at self annihelization were games that spirits played, as if embodied. Later, Buddha requires no sentiment confession, because Tan Tien prefigures a thousand years after Buddha, and a thousand years after, that noble truths of right action right thought can befit a man not worthy but can reemerge from the ground under the lutus unto the flower that repays all debts incurred .
Human, all too human is a man who can not grow in the mire of the mud, and yet the same who can throw away the degrading sinkhole that privilege of growth afforded him.
It turns into ballast and insulation that protects man from his own shadow, that feeling can viscera’s that look of despair thought to etche into the face of his soul.
In good faith can he face him, and that honest appraisal offer him a new look and understanding of why he was fated to fall.
