Love-Criticisms of John Galt and Freud The main postulates of Christianity have been widely discussed and even argued in the world literature and philosophy. The greatest philosophers of the mankind have always tried to put to the test their ultimate truth and viability. One of the Christian commandments that have turned out to be most controversial and caused a lot of speculation is the one that declares: Love thy neighbor as thyself. It was supported and contradicted in many ways. But the criticisms, suggested by the fiction character John Galt and the well-known philosopher Sigmund Freud, are considered so far most expressive and outstanding. In the novel Atlas Shrugged written by the American writer and philosopher Ayen Rand one of the main protagonists John Galt delivers his famous radio speech in which he questions and stands against the validity and reasonability of the existing moral code.
He explains the imminence of the worlds doom by a chain of factors that are interrelated and influenced by each other. But the key factor among those is the morality of sacrifice. In Galts opinion, this doctrine speeds up the degradation of the world and its further decay and death. Galt feverishly speaks up against the people who have imposed this code of morality on the society. He contrasts virtues based on sacrifice and demanded by the ruling class, and virtues based on common sense. The basic virtue according to Galt is rationality.
It is the foundation of all the other virtues, such as independence, integrity, justice, honesty, productiveness and pride. Using the most persuasive words John Galt scorns the people that have sacrificed these genuine virtues to the virtues that are only considered to be good and true in this society: You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial.
The Term Paper on Compare And Contrast John Locke And Jean Jacques Rousseau On The Theme Of Equality
Compare and Contrast John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau on the Theme of Equality The notion of equality was much discussed by modern and ancient philosophers. All of them I think contributed to the level of contemporary understanding of this notion. I think that the brightest and the weightiest works dedicated to equality were written by John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau in 18th century. The ...
You have sacrificed happiness to duty. Thus, the world being on the verge of its collapse is not the result of peoples sins, but the result of their so-called virtues. John Galt clearly states that the existing code of sacrifice is the morality of death, introduced and successfully implemented by the ruling authorities. This class of people produces nothing and has no value, but it demands from the other representatives of the society constant sacrifice motivating it by the notion of love, love to thy neighbor. But how can an intelligent person sacrifice his/her own self-esteem, honesty and pride to love to such miserable rulers that have no value at all? That is why men of the mind go on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of ones happiness is evil. They protest against the sovereignty of the social morality and the mystical one, as the former makes people serve their neighbors welfare, the latter makes them please God. These two types of morality have been rivals for many centuries taking the whole of the peoples minds and ensuring them that self-sacrifice (be it the one for the sake of ghosts in heaven or the one in favor of incompetents on earth) was the highest good and the truth in the last resort.
This eternal rivalry has not left a chance to the genuine morality, the morality that proclaims that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it. Sigmund Freud also denied the reasonability of the Christian views on love. In his work Civilization and Its Discontents he discloses the nature of relationships between people. To his mind, not love to ones neighbor, but aggressiveness directs peoples actions. As a result, a neighbor is treated by a person not only as a potential helper or a sexual object, but also as an object on which a person can satisfy his/her aggressiveness. Freud gives an example of the ancient Latin proverb Homo homini lupus est that best supports his theory, as it is translated as man is wolf to man.
The Joker, Batman’s nemesis, is far from a golden example of good. In fact, he’s more of a madman out to watch the world burn as he causes chaos, which he calls “justice”. And even though he is evil and madness incarnate, there’s still a place for him in people’s minds under the category of awesome. From the show Supernatural, the fallen angel, Lucifer enjoys torturing, ...
A cruel aggressiveness is not always evident, it may be subdued for a certain period of time and awaken by some acute provocation. This inclination to aggression which is present in all people is the main factor that spoils and makes impossible our good relations with our neighbors. As consequence of this mutual hostility human society is always threatened with disintegration and the task of the humanity is to prevent this disintegration. According to Freud, the attempts of people to unite on the basis of common work were fruitless as the instinctual passions of aggressiveness are much stronger than mutual interests. One of the methods to restrict violence is the right to use violence against criminals. Another method was suggested by the communist ideology. According to comunists, the source of aggressiveness laid in the institution of private property, that is why it had to be abolished.
Instead, all people should own all wealth together, and then there would be no reason for aggressiveness. But Sigmund Freud criticized and never accepted this theory. In his opinion, aggressiveness was not created by property, it had much longer roots, it lay in the nature of human beings. The above mentioned criticisms of love are absolutely different, as they deny the reasonability of the Christian commandment Love thy neighbor as thyself taking into account absolutely different factors of the human evolution. The criticism of John Galt is build on the denial of the collectivist ideology, whereas in the center of Freuds criticism lies natural aggressiveness. Though, both Rand and Freud pay much attention in their philosophy to the irrationality and deficiency of the communist ideology.
They both pointed out its unpractical and erroneous nature. Both theories are well-grounded, but I find Rands criticism much stronger, as the writer appeals not only to the psychological nature of a person, but also discloses an eternal and acute problem of existence of classes. Nevertheless, I cannot agree completely with the criticisms, as they tend to deny the social nature of a person. We should always remember that we all live in the society, which can further develop democratically only on condition that all its members express if not love then at least a deep respect to the others..
Nature and human have always interacted throughout history, and the interaction of the two forces has evolved into a series of demands that people have put on nature to survive and develop. By contrast a minority of people have questioned the state of things and tried to figure out how humanity and nature can interact and develop together, and through their questioning they have come to define ...