Lindsay Perigo’s idea of replacing the concept of selfishness with selffulness, or something similar, is a bright light of forward thinking in a rather conformist Objectivist culture that often treats Ayn Rand as the living God.
What would be the difference now if Rand named her book, “The Virture of Rational Self-Interest,” and followed it up with a whole slew of articles and books on the subject, depicting the lack of a concept for the independent man and woman who just wants to live, and create and enjoy life? Why they didn’t stick with the concept of rational self-interest instead of going, many times, with selfishness could turn out to be a horrendous mistake and tragedy.
Objectivist conformists and dogmatists treat Rand as a God, and because she challenged the concept of selfishness, and wanted to rescue it from the pits of hell, they follow meekly in her lead. Yet how do you challenge one of the most reviled words in the English dictionary, a word used to describe the worst of murder, rape, robbery, pillage, along with people who will do anything in order to seek their advantage?
Can you battle a whole culture and all the institutions with a pea shooter?
Lindsay says the process of reclaiming the concept of selfishness is a lost cause and I agree with him. Much better to invent a pleasing word to describe Rand’s vision. Enemies of Objectivism use the Hitler version of selfishness to smear Rand, and Objectivists, often, make a mockery of the word with their bad behavior.
Along with a change in concepts, another crucial area is how the concept of selfishness has been tainted, corrupted and stained by many Objectivists. Lindsay uses the words asshole-ism, anal-retentiveness and solipsism which equal a new concept: Binswanger and boys. Do I have to say more? Do these creepy crawlers have anything to do with Objectivism except for the fact they claim to have epistemological expertise that almost always results in some fantasy-ridden view of reality like Binswanger’s essay on immigration?