To counter the notion that my statement was predicated upon the assumption of you being selfish, I included the clause "Regardless of whether or not you're selfish." Really if you think about it, any attempt to imagine what a selfish person desires, by anyone, will necessarily evoke their own desires. And if it doesn't, the exercise was only self-deception. (If you say you're referring to what you believe other people desire... then I suppose you're imagining a selfish man who desires... what? What you yourself desire. Same thing.)
That you find these facts "hypothetical"--as if a person can think something other than what he thinks, then, presumably, act in a manner inconsistent with his thoughts--is what I often refer to as a "startling disconnect from reality."
But this is like talking about a break-dancing unicorn--can he break-dance? You're right that that's the way I see it. However, my argument does not hinge upon its frame of reference. It rests on two main premises: 1) that people act to obtain and keep that which they value and nothing else 2) that these values are often warped and irrational due to the effects of various societal pressures and religious delusions.
Selfish is simple word to define considering its roots, and I tend toward Webster's 1828 Dictionary for its preference of Latin roots over definitional tends. "SELF-ISH - Regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely; influenced in actions by a view to private advantage." That is my definition.
And again, implicit in the definition of selfishness, is the concept of rationality. No irrational act can ever ultimately be selfish. That's not so obvious, but neither is it incredibly abstruse.
Now let's go back to this break-dancing unicorn of yours, the altruistic man. To start, the notion of a selfless desire is a contradiction in terms: desires originate from nowhere but the self. An organism cannot act without some inner compulsion; the mind cannot spontaneously order a muscle in the absence of intent; the thing that acts cannot act out of reference to itself. The notion that persons can act out of reference to themselves is, again, that "startling disconnect from reality" to which I often refer. This is the pitfall of all but a handful of philosophies, incidentally.
You've done nothing but restate your last post. I think someone is being intellectually dishonest.
What you fail to grasp about your "logic proof" is its origin: your own thoughts, desires and convictions. Regardless of whether or not you're selfish (which you are), whatever you honesly believe "a selfish person" would desire can only be your own desire. There's no way around it. BUT, if you really do not wish to murder your family or leave your sick spouse, then your projection of this "selfish person" is dishonest (which it is).
We value other people to the degree to which we identify with them--that's the extent to which they are like us. This is the most utterly selfish behavior imaginable. (You may be tempted to say that this is untrue because it doesn't seem that people always gravitate to those who are alike, but having only a few essential characteristics in common is plenty. On the other hand, religion and societal pressures compel people to maintain false relationships.) You did not know why you love. Now you do.
As far as the behaviors you maintain are selfish such as theft, murder, etc, the fact is that any irrational behavior is never ultimately selfish. That's impossible as that which is irrational does not correspond to reality, and when you challange the facts of reality, they win every time. The reasons why criminal behavior is always irrational and not just simply immoral are plentiful but beyond the scope of this discussion. They are well summarized the following way: The most powerful mob boss doesn't sleep well at night for three reasons: his enemies, his friends and his shame. Rational selfishness is never parasitic.
They're not ad-hominem attacks unless I predicate my arguments on them. These are
just observations.
Now let's talk about how you are a detestable monster.
From my assertion that all people act selfishly, you derive the following: "You think
that everyone would murder his spouse, children and closest friends for a fee if he
could get away with it?" Your conclusion is that selfishness necessitates murderous
behavior, again, because you are a monster who has just confessed to a desire to act
in such a way.
Your contention that people are to be graded and judged solely by physical health,
that the physically unfit are "liabilities," and that "selfish reasoning suggests the
healthy spouse should leave the sick spouse" does not follow anything I said. It is
your own belief, Dr. Strangelove. And I don't see it could be "temporary."
You evidently believe that if people are to be valued at all, it is for physical
health, therefore we can only love altruistically, which is to say, for no
reason whatsoever. Why is it that you cannot imagine any way in which to value a
person other than by physical health?
Altruism can best be exemplified by a sacrifice to a complete stranger because, if
the receiving party is an asset to the giving party, the act is not a sacrifice but a
trade. A man who spends his last cent on his wife's medical treatment has
demonstrated that his wife is worth more to him than the money--it was a trade. A
true sacrifice would involve a man who spends his last cent on someone he never knew.
An act can be partially altruistic, but for the sake of clarity, I'm discussing the
most pure forms of altruism. I should have said "the purest example of
altruistic behavior . .." This is not to say altruism exists, only that the behavior
is commited under its guise.
And lastly, you make no differentiation between coerced and volitional acts, as if a
man acting under threat is not doing whatever he must to save himself. You would make
an excellent dictator.
I don't see how that's a selfless behavior. I do see that you evaluate a person's worth by their physical health. Again, very telling. (N.B. A man caring for someone in a permanently vegetative state wouldn't be selfless either. His actions in this case are a result of social pressures/religious delusions, etc.)
In fact, the only genuine example of altruistic behavior would be when one sacrifices something significant for a complete stranger for no reason other than the receiver's well-being. This, of course, never occurs as we find the impetus is always social pressures/religious delusions, etc.
A man's spouse, children and closest friends are assets to him, so he will act in their favor, which is in his favor.
Your belief that selfishness necessitates violence is a confession of the fact that you believe people desire to act in such a way. What does that say about you?
YES! More bureaucracy! Let's give more people with zero stake in something complete control over it!
How does such a group make any decisions? Out of the good of their hearts? By what they consider best for you? Funny how people always ascribe all this "greed" to corporations and rarely to public officials. Let's get something straight right now: EVERYONE IS IN IT--THIS THING WE CALL LIFE--FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. But you have to watch the ones who say they aren't, that they're here for the sake of everyone else, and that you should be too. They're running a con game and they want your blood.
Unless it involves physical violence, government is never the solution.
Nietzsche contended that christianity was the death of Rome too. One could ask: what were the Roman gods but personified aspects of man? Compare them to the christian god and it's easy to regard the latter as the "anti-man." Rome was truly the last man-oriented culture, but christianity rendered it impotent like a cancer victim.
The same petulant children who whine about the nanny state and our ever-diminishing freedoms, scream and cry that corporations are the exact opposite. The company you work for is not your mother, but a group of people with whom you mutually agreed to be employed. The terms of your employment are your choice; you are not forced to accept any. It would seem some here would like not to have this choice at all. A few even seem to be outraged by the simple fact of reality that there are physical necessities in life and that no monolithic entity will swoop down from the heavens to provide them automatically.
Slashdot Mirror
To counter the notion that my statement was predicated upon the assumption of you being selfish, I included the clause "Regardless of whether or not you're selfish." Really if you think about it, any attempt to imagine what a selfish person desires, by anyone, will necessarily evoke their own desires. And if it doesn't, the exercise was only self-deception. (If you say you're referring to what you believe other people desire... then I suppose you're imagining a selfish man who desires... what? What you yourself desire. Same thing.)
That you find these facts "hypothetical"--as if a person can think something other than what he thinks, then, presumably, act in a manner inconsistent with his thoughts--is what I often refer to as a "startling disconnect from reality."
But this is like talking about a break-dancing unicorn--can he break-dance? You're right that that's the way I see it. However, my argument does not hinge upon its frame of reference. It rests on two main premises: 1) that people act to obtain and keep that which they value and nothing else 2) that these values are often warped and irrational due to the effects of various societal pressures and religious delusions.
Selfish is simple word to define considering its roots, and I tend toward Webster's 1828 Dictionary for its preference of Latin roots over definitional tends. "SELF-ISH - Regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely; influenced in actions by a view to private advantage." That is my definition.
And again, implicit in the definition of selfishness, is the concept of rationality. No irrational act can ever ultimately be selfish. That's not so obvious, but neither is it incredibly abstruse.
Now let's go back to this break-dancing unicorn of yours, the altruistic man. To start, the notion of a selfless desire is a contradiction in terms: desires originate from nowhere but the self. An organism cannot act without some inner compulsion; the mind cannot spontaneously order a muscle in the absence of intent; the thing that acts cannot act out of reference to itself. The notion that persons can act out of reference to themselves is, again, that "startling disconnect from reality" to which I often refer. This is the pitfall of all but a handful of philosophies, incidentally.
You've done nothing but restate your last post. I think someone is being intellectually dishonest.
What you fail to grasp about your "logic proof" is its origin: your own thoughts, desires and convictions. Regardless of whether or not you're selfish (which you are), whatever you honesly believe "a selfish person" would desire can only be your own desire. There's no way around it. BUT, if you really do not wish to murder your family or leave your sick spouse, then your projection of this "selfish person" is dishonest (which it is).
We value other people to the degree to which we identify with them--that's the extent to which they are like us. This is the most utterly selfish behavior imaginable. (You may be tempted to say that this is untrue because it doesn't seem that people always gravitate to those who are alike, but having only a few essential characteristics in common is plenty. On the other hand, religion and societal pressures compel people to maintain false relationships.) You did not know why you love. Now you do.
As far as the behaviors you maintain are selfish such as theft, murder, etc, the fact is that any irrational behavior is never ultimately selfish. That's impossible as that which is irrational does not correspond to reality, and when you challange the facts of reality, they win every time. The reasons why criminal behavior is always irrational and not just simply immoral are plentiful but beyond the scope of this discussion. They are well summarized the following way: The most powerful mob boss doesn't sleep well at night for three reasons: his enemies, his friends and his shame. Rational selfishness is never parasitic.
They're not ad-hominem attacks unless I predicate my arguments on them. These are just observations.
." This is not to say altruism exists, only that the behavior
is commited under its guise.
Now let's talk about how you are a detestable monster.
From my assertion that all people act selfishly, you derive the following: "You think that everyone would murder his spouse, children and closest friends for a fee if he could get away with it?" Your conclusion is that selfishness necessitates murderous behavior, again, because you are a monster who has just confessed to a desire to act in such a way.
Your contention that people are to be graded and judged solely by physical health, that the physically unfit are "liabilities," and that "selfish reasoning suggests the healthy spouse should leave the sick spouse" does not follow anything I said. It is your own belief, Dr. Strangelove. And I don't see it could be "temporary."
You evidently believe that if people are to be valued at all, it is for physical health, therefore we can only love altruistically, which is to say, for no reason whatsoever. Why is it that you cannot imagine any way in which to value a person other than by physical health?
Altruism can best be exemplified by a sacrifice to a complete stranger because, if the receiving party is an asset to the giving party, the act is not a sacrifice but a trade. A man who spends his last cent on his wife's medical treatment has demonstrated that his wife is worth more to him than the money--it was a trade. A true sacrifice would involve a man who spends his last cent on someone he never knew.
An act can be partially altruistic, but for the sake of clarity, I'm discussing the most pure forms of altruism. I should have said "the purest example of altruistic behavior . .
And lastly, you make no differentiation between coerced and volitional acts, as if a man acting under threat is not doing whatever he must to save himself. You would make an excellent dictator.
I don't see how that's a selfless behavior. I do see that you evaluate a person's worth by their physical health. Again, very telling. (N.B. A man caring for someone in a permanently vegetative state wouldn't be selfless either. His actions in this case are a result of social pressures/religious delusions, etc.)
In fact, the only genuine example of altruistic behavior would be when one sacrifices something significant for a complete stranger for no reason other than the receiver's well-being. This, of course, never occurs as we find the impetus is always social pressures/religious delusions, etc.
A man's spouse, children and closest friends are assets to him, so he will act in their favor, which is in his favor.
Your belief that selfishness necessitates violence is a confession of the fact that you believe people desire to act in such a way. What does that say about you?
YES! More bureaucracy! Let's give more people with zero stake in something complete control over it! How does such a group make any decisions? Out of the good of their hearts? By what they consider best for you? Funny how people always ascribe all this "greed" to corporations and rarely to public officials. Let's get something straight right now: EVERYONE IS IN IT--THIS THING WE CALL LIFE--FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. But you have to watch the ones who say they aren't, that they're here for the sake of everyone else, and that you should be too. They're running a con game and they want your blood. Unless it involves physical violence, government is never the solution.
Al Gore.
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/051003.html
The work was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security Well, you know they'll somehow go to good use in the war on terra.
Is this like the Puffy Daddy / P.Diddy thing?
Nietzsche contended that christianity was the death of Rome too. One could ask: what were the Roman gods but personified aspects of man? Compare them to the christian god and it's easy to regard the latter as the "anti-man." Rome was truly the last man-oriented culture, but christianity rendered it impotent like a cancer victim.
In Florida the cockroaches are big. They drive vans.
The same petulant children who whine about the nanny state and our ever-diminishing freedoms, scream and cry that corporations are the exact opposite. The company you work for is not your mother, but a group of people with whom you mutually agreed to be employed. The terms of your employment are your choice; you are not forced to accept any. It would seem some here would like not to have this choice at all. A few even seem to be outraged by the simple fact of reality that there are physical necessities in life and that no monolithic entity will swoop down from the heavens to provide them automatically.