That is exactly what you should do… Work with the ideas to make them your own.  That is the real goal of this whole exercise; men and women who have refined the tools of their own minds, fully capable, to stand in their own ideas, under their own rational power, and able to combat the philosophical disaster taking this world by storm.

Take your time.  It took me years to develop the ideas that I am offering. Challenge what you read. And keep doing that until you are satisfied. There is no rush. 

And from my side, I find your questions invaluable.  It is for this reason that I started working on an article on Altruism. I realized after you started asking questions that I have assumed that people were familiar with what that meant but that was a faulty assumption.  You have asked some essential questions that need answers.

The first step I think is figuring out how to explain the formal ethical statement such that people can grasp the central idea. 

But the second step will require that I deconstruct the many ways Altruism has been introduced into Christianity. The challenge before me I think is that most Christians presume the moral ideal.  And most every philosopher I’ve read that challenges Altruism condemns it as a part and parcel of Christianity. They reject morality by another worldly authority because they reject another worldly authority. However their criticisms of the ethical disaster of altruism are accurate.  
 
I think what you are tripping (what most Christians trip over) is that they think they see Altruism reflected in cannon. More specifically they think they see the concept “sacrificial living” in bible verses, and have been told this type of living is the just remedy for Pervasively Depraved man. No one realizes that sacrificial living is an oxymoron, and very few people have the nerve to challenge the premise of depravity. So they read the themes of “sacrifice” and “giving” and “doing unto others” and assume that Christianity is basically altruism by another name.

 I contended that Altruisms advocates have superimposed the moral standard over those themes.

Anyway… the article that is coming is my effort to take a whack at step one… with a brief glimpse into the real source of Altruisms destructive power.  I doubt I will get to the second step of deconstructing the hijacking of Christianity by Altruistic advocates for a while.
 
In the mean time, I will offer this quote for you to consider.  Maybe it will help you to get a peek at what Altruism really does, what it really demands of Man.
 

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

Ayn Rand, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, pg 61

 I’m reading ST every day and trying to glean as much information as possible. I have gotten a TON out of it so far though. I admit that Dear Christian Chicken Little hit home with me in some ways. I laughed at your image of God there, piteously drubbing man about the head with life’s circumstances…..But that is so true to how many people view what being a Christian is all about. I refuse to believe that after recieving the adoption as a Son, the healing and restoration of my brokenness, the New Birth and New Creation, I have to relate to God in this remote, cowering, half-sure way. I could throw more adjectives in there but you know what I mean…. Why do so many Christians live in Chicken Little Land?

I guess according to some of these ideas, we CHOOSE to live a life of intentionality or a life of pssivity…and when our moral purpose and direction are not being affirmed, we end up asking the Demagouges of Dictated Good for our spiritual answers, or something to that effect.  I’m sick of an existence of anything less than total and radical freedom, purpose, and intentionality in the Annointed Jesus.

I am still feeling out these views and learning to wield them to an extent. I mean some of the stuff you cover I have a good understanding of, other stuff is pretty new to me.

 I’m still confused somewhat on Altruism in the sense you are describing it here. I mean I think I am just having trouble understanding the practical implications of it. Is the main evil that it says that when you pursue your talents/drives/ and desires that God created you with, that it’s evil and selfish? I.e. if you aren’t sacrificing, it’s not moral? Or even just to live intentionally- Altrusim says that drive is not “Moral” or pleasing to God unless it is always self-sacrificing (which is of course defined by those in charge)?…. I see how that can be dangerous, because claiming a moral absolute of any sort is inherently ill-advised and dangerous. If then if my art and music isn’t self-sacrificing, it’s not moral?

So I’m not sure I fully understand it yet. I think with a couple weeks more research I’ll have a better handle on it… I DO completely see where Kantian metaphysics were a continuation of Platonic ideas.

I like how you used the speech from Obama to highlight our inherant fallacies and assumptions and presuppositions in American Moral Logic. I’m still working through that…

I COMPLETELY see how ”multi-culturalism” and “brotherhood and diversity and equality” have underlying metaphysical and philosophical foundations which perpatrate some VERY specific tyranny. The voice of Moral Authority creeps into our culture in a lot of ways through those supposed ideals. I will write a healthy response post about that ASAP… I definitely have some things to say on that subject. Calling a Spade a Spade is viewed as “old-fashioned”, culturally insensitive, and shallow minded. Along with a a whole host of other demonizing logic. Don’t speak harshly, it drives people away! We must have unity, unity, unity!”

Importantly, do you have any more to say about this bit?:

“Moral seducers are always redefining words because they want to control the ethical equation.”
and
“But this method is designed to chaperone our emotions and actions to prevent our dissent. They guilt us into accepting their definitions and manipulate our sense of justice.”

I’m really interested in that. Thank you!!!!

http://xkcd.com/660/