info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Narcissism and Intolerance
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ilya Shambat
Jan 23, 2023, 9:15:27 PM1/23/23
to
There are people telling me that intolerance of other people’s opinions is a narcissistic trait. This would portray as narcissists the following: Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Ayn Rand, St. Paul, Mohammad, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Thomas Edison, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Pat Robertson, James Randi, Catherine McKinnon, Ayatollah, Phyllis Schaffly and just about everyone who has been Pope.
In dealing with opinionated people who have original things to say, most people would like to separate the grain from the chaff. They want the brilliance and originality; they don’t want intolerance and aggression. Thus, many people find value for Ayn Rand’s observations, but they don’t want to deal with her complete intolerance of anything that is not her opinion. They want to get the benefit of the person’s insight without being subject to the person’s attitude.
Is that a realistic stance? As an opinionated person myself, I know that opinions do not come for free, and one has to put in a lot of thought into forming them. This then creates a personal attachment to them, which may very well result in intolerance. In some cases – such as Marx, Freud, Ayn Rand, Mohammad or St. Paul – the belief is that what one has is the truth and that nothing else is. This of course very much does result in intolerance, and it is intolerance that is had not only by the “narcissistic” leaders but also by their perfectly normal followers.
Of course, in addition to intolerant individuals, there are also intolerant cultures. I do not see anyone say that Oklahoma or Iran are guilty of collective narcissism. In those cultures, the average person is intolerant; and one is not reduced to finding intolerance among people with personality disorders.
With thoughtful, opinionated individuals, people want the benefits of the thought; they don’t want the intolerance to other ways of thought. So, once again, many people find value in the works of Ayn Rand even while they detest her as a person. Can one separate the grain from the chaff? Can one derive benefit from original thought without dealing with associated personal problems? I think that it may be possible. However it is not going to be easy.
I have become more tolerant as I got older. That is because there were any number of issues on which I had to change my mind in response to new evidence. For example I used to be anti-family. I identified family with wrongdoing within the family. Then I had a family of my own and realized how wrong that stance was. Family is not the problem; wrongdoing within the family is the problem. Family can, and should, be done better.
Ayn Rand said that what’s needed is not an open mind but an active mind: the mind that is willing to examine issues critically. I contribute both original thought and criticism. I have an original perspective on a lot of things, and I am willing to tolerate contrary views. I will however scrutinize them. This is a process from which everyone benefits; and in engaging in it one makes his contributions to thought without being an intolerant person and without being ugly to others.
In dealing with opinionated people who have original things to say, most people would like to separate the grain from the chaff. They want the brilliance and originality; they don’t want intolerance and aggression. Thus, many people find value for Ayn Rand’s observations, but they don’t want to deal with her complete intolerance of anything that is not her opinion. They want to get the benefit of the person’s insight without being subject to the person’s attitude.
Is that a realistic stance? As an opinionated person myself, I know that opinions do not come for free, and one has to put in a lot of thought into forming them. This then creates a personal attachment to them, which may very well result in intolerance. In some cases – such as Marx, Freud, Ayn Rand, Mohammad or St. Paul – the belief is that what one has is the truth and that nothing else is. This of course very much does result in intolerance, and it is intolerance that is had not only by the “narcissistic” leaders but also by their perfectly normal followers.
Of course, in addition to intolerant individuals, there are also intolerant cultures. I do not see anyone say that Oklahoma or Iran are guilty of collective narcissism. In those cultures, the average person is intolerant; and one is not reduced to finding intolerance among people with personality disorders.
With thoughtful, opinionated individuals, people want the benefits of the thought; they don’t want the intolerance to other ways of thought. So, once again, many people find value in the works of Ayn Rand even while they detest her as a person. Can one separate the grain from the chaff? Can one derive benefit from original thought without dealing with associated personal problems? I think that it may be possible. However it is not going to be easy.
I have become more tolerant as I got older. That is because there were any number of issues on which I had to change my mind in response to new evidence. For example I used to be anti-family. I identified family with wrongdoing within the family. Then I had a family of my own and realized how wrong that stance was. Family is not the problem; wrongdoing within the family is the problem. Family can, and should, be done better.
Ayn Rand said that what’s needed is not an open mind but an active mind: the mind that is willing to examine issues critically. I contribute both original thought and criticism. I have an original perspective on a lot of things, and I am willing to tolerate contrary views. I will however scrutinize them. This is a process from which everyone benefits; and in engaging in it one makes his contributions to thought without being an intolerant person and without being ugly to others.
0 new messages