slacker00

I finally got a reply from the dictionary editor. Have fun with it, guys. You are correct: the word "selfish" relates to a "concern for one's own interests." However, when considering the concept of selfishness, there are inherent psychological and emotional forces to consider. A person is especially selfish when another person is affected by their actions and they do not think or care about that person's resultant feelings and needs. Let's say, a boy voluntarily helps to clean up an elderly person's yard. The next day the elderly person gives him some money, which he takes because he can then buy things for himself with it. It would be hard to make a case that this boy acted selfishly, mainly, I would argue, because he did not harm anyone in any way. Now, let's say a group of boys did the voluntary clean-up. The next day the elderly person gives one of the boys some money for their work, but the boy does not share the money with the others. This boy is acting selfishly specifically because he is not thinking about the other boys and how they would appreciate the money, too; instead he is thinking about how the money can be spent by himself and for himself. In other words, he is acting in his own interest without regard for others and what is rightfully due to them. We had such scenarios in mind when we modified the definitions of "selfish" with the phrases "without regard for others" and "in disregard of others." I hope my explanation has cleared things up. Sincerely, Benjamin Korzec Associate Editor www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webstercollegiate.com www.wordcentral.com www.learnersdictionary.com -----Original Message----- From: slacker00 Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Definition of "selfish" I'm curious how you come up with this definition for "selfish". Common understanding of selfish is simply concern for one's own interests. Why tack on "without regard for others"? How does this extra phrase add meaning to the definition? I think it only confuses the definition, clouding the true meaning. Please explain. Thank you. I'll resist giving my own opinion at this time to let you guys swing for the fences, if you care to do so. To those that continue to debate concepts rather than definitions, I've started a concept thread.

Since I feel like people are debating this point in my thread debating the definition of selfish. Let's drill down one more level. Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness? This time the debate is about concepts and not definitions. This is in direct contrast to my other thread on the topic.

Yes. I don't enjoy the dictionary game one bit. Ever since I started this tangent, I've been questioning the utility value the entire time. I stated earlier that I cannot change the word. I cannot rewrite the dictionary. At moments, I think I can make a difference in the big scheme. At times I wonder if it's worth it. Shrugging off people is a loss of value, IMHO. I value people more than you, in general, I imagine. Maybe we've got different unique life situations. Maybe one or both of us are giving a false value to others, in general. It's a good debate topic, but beyond the scope of this thread. Jake, I don't claim RSI is good. I claim RSI is what I am. Others can make their own value judgements. Your argument that I'm saying R implies SI or that SI implies R seems like the false argument that you were making earlier, which I rejected in my last reply.

Isn't it possible to have a RSI intent without a RSI outcome? Mistakes happen. Plenty of people act in so-called selfish ways, without a rational result. The bank robber killed in the act, the drug dealer in prison, political crooks, etc. What about my selfish brother, who took all of the ice cream and left none for my sister's birthday party? You can use a circular definition for selfish, which equates it to rational, but I don't think that's rational at all. Besides, this thread isn't about debating concepts. We are debating viability of the definition of selfish, as understood by non-Objectivists. I think many here are having a hard time imagining what selfish means to a non-Objectivist. Weren't we all unfamiliar to Objectivism once upon a time? Back on topic, here's more definitions, extending my list from page 1. selfish concerned with oneself more than others, not sharing: Your selfish brother took all the ice cream and left us none. -n. selfish 1. Holding one"s self-interest as the standard for decision making. 2. Regard for oneself above others" well-being. Wow, good one! #1 seems like dead-on RSI, probably even better than Rand's Oxford dictionary definition. selfish Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage: The judge told him: "Your attitude shows a selfish disregard for others." selfish concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others. selfish Regarding one's own interest chiefly or soley; influenced in actions by a view to private advantage. Check it out. Webster's 1828 definition. My oldest definition so far! selfish 1640, from self (q.v.). Said in Hacket's life of Archbishop Williams (1693) to have been coined by Presbyterians. In the 17c., synonyms included self-seeking (1628), self-ended and self-ful. From an Etymological Dictionary, which I've never used before. It explains word origins. Here's another dozen dictionary definition links which I haven't explored yet: selfish

Because "selfish" doesn't force them to understand what it means to me. In fact, there's traps in the definition. RSI, nails it to the wall. What is debatable about RSI? rational 1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior> self interest 1 : a concern for one's own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear> 2 : one's own interest or advantage <self–interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid> Very notable, regard for others is not mentioned either as a positive or negative. It's totally free of baggage. Not to mention value judgment expressions like excessive or undo, etc.

Best answer so far. But I still never really got a good grasp on how Rand's characters interacted. Especially Roark & Dominque Francon. I loved how Rand's characters acted as individuals, but I always felt somewhat confused when they interacted with one another. I regret mentioning a million dollars to a bunch of Objectivists. haha

But with selfish, I have to explain why everyone is wrong and I am right and the dictionary publishers have a conspiracy against me, etc, etc. I'm not sure how long I can maintain that type of conversation before I sound like a loon to the average person. Meanwhile, explaining RSI, I'd already well on my way down the path of my concepts, in explanation. In one case, I've achieved a negative results, in all probability. In the second example, a rational result, explaining things accurately without need for political commentary or side tracks to bigger concepts like socialized mind control. But I've changed course. Until further notice, I'm doing some slacker00 activism and I'm going to write to all of the dictionary publishers and see what they have to say about their definitions. I'm going to change the word selfish back to Rand's definition. There's no need to tag their incoherent baggage to the word which needs no political commentary. Selfish-acting with respect to self. I just came up with that. I like it. I dunno, it's 2 am.

I think I'm going to write Merriam-Webster and ask them about how they come up with their definition for selfish. I've done some informal polling on my other message boards and it seems that people actually do think of selfish the way Rand defines it. Granted, I am polling people that aren't liberal/socialists. But even so, I thought that among random conservatives, which many are religious, there would be more of a 50/50 split. But it's more like 9 to 1 in favor of selfish being rational. I also consider that I designed my polling method very badly. It has still changed my opinion, to a degree.

Well, it's the million dollar question, because that's what I think I meant when I asked my thread starter question. She did answer questions about Objectivism. That's how the philosophy books started getting written. People wanted to know more about Ayn Rand's philosophy, after Atlas Shrugged became a best seller. So, her being a writer, saw the potential and wrote books. But I still wonder, why? There's no denying that she's had a big impact on many people's lives, not to mention culture in general. But was this her design? Did she hope to change culture? Did she want to have a following of Objectivism? Or did the Objectivism stage of Ayn Rand's life happen like a whirlwind? I ask because I always thought that she imagined some real life utopia and that was her driving focus for Objectivism. Now I'm starting to think that I must've heard this idea from the wrong kind of so called Objectivists or whatever. It was so long ago, I haven't a clue where I might have picked up this concept. Just the concept of utopia is a socialist concept, I think. So, I was just curious that despite her being such an anti-socialist movement, were there still elements of socialism which she couldn't reject? This is a separate idea that I might get to some day. Anyway, I don't really expect any answers. These are rhetorical questions for myself. I know I'm stuck in a lot of socialist type mindsets, which seems inevitable after 17 years of public education when I add up k-12 & 4 years of university. Add on corporate life where everyone else has also had this 17+ years of socialist indoctrination. I don't even know where I'd meet anyone anymore that's halfway intelligent that hasn't had socialism seeped deep into their soul.

Shouldn't one always be mindful of the big picture of reality? disregard : to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice synonyms see neglect I agree about the starving babies in Africa. For me, they might as well be starving babies on some unknown planet hosting life which we have not discovered yet. I have no answer for Africa. That doesn't mean that I completely disregard the continent and the people entirely. If we discovered life somewhere out there in the universe, I'd be interested in that as well. I'm interested in the entirety of reality, despite the fact that I may have a primary focus of interest. Reality is of high regard.

Thanks Tony, I'm still bogged down in definitions. If I may set aside the words: selfish, unselfish, altruism and the variants let me try to phrase my question differently. Was Ayn Rand a producer? Yes. What did Ayn Rand produce? Objectivism. Why? The answer lies within the explanation of Objectivism. Did she answer questions about Objectivism? Yes. Why? This is the million dollar question, I think.

I'm not arguing the concept. I'm arguing the description of the concept. The definition you are arguing, I think you've made a reasonable case for that definition. It's just that most people don't think like Objectivists. That's my point. I must live in a reality, which is largely populated by non Objectivists. I need to explain my behavior, one way or another, at times in order to function in cooperation with non Objectivists. I can't just reject reject reject indefinitely anyone not Objectivist as I go down the road of life. In fact, some people do find me of interest and would like to know more about my code of ethics, at times. Do I tell them, flatly, that I'm selfish? That's what I'm getting at. I'm not good at doublespeak or keeping two lies disconnected. When I say I'm selfish, it's a lie when it hits someone's ears that interprets it the incorrect way. Sure, misunderstanding is inevitable to some degree. But I think this word contains a misunderstanding which breaches my threshold for truth. Truth in communication. Language is all about 2 or more people communicating and it isn't individualistic. I'm not ready to abandon language.

I took a survey of the online dictionaries I could find, as well as my household encyclopedia which I own in addition to my standard "tried & true" Merriam-Webster College Dictionary that I've had since summer of 1995. selfish(thefreedictionary.com) 1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: I'm chiefly concerned with reason, reality and the people contained within it. It's irrational to ignore others, whether friend or foe, because they are a part of the fabric of reality. It's like speeding down the highway and ignoring an insane driver, a police car or perhaps a stranded friend. I'm always grounded in reality, not tied down to any singular concern which doesn't encompass the entirety of reality and reason. I am only one part of reality. There is plenty of reality which extends beyond myself. selfish (From Wiktionary.org.) 1. Holding one’s self-interest as the standard for decision making. 2. Having regard for oneself above others’ well-being. This one is dead-on correct. Now if I could just wedge rational in there. selfish(From reference.com) 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only foroneself: selfish motives. Again, it's irrational to ignore reality which includes other people besides myself. I am my own primary concern, but not my only concern. selfish(From yourdictionary.com.) 1. too much concerned with one's own welfare or interests and having little or no concern for others; self-centered 2. showing or prompted by self-interest #1, same explanation as above. I can live with #2, even though rational self interest is more accurate to the true concept rather than only showing or prompted by self-interest. -Below are some of my physical "hard copy" dictionaries I use. <Same definition as my first post of this thread> (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary 1994) This is my standard. I've had it since college and it's been everywhere with me since then. I've never had a problem with any definition and I've probably looked up thousands. It's a reason why I link the same dictionary, so I'm consistent. selfish(Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedia Dictionary-1966,1968.) 1.Caring chiefly for oneself or one's own interests or comfort, especially to the point of disregarding the welfare or wishes of others. 2.Proceeding from or characterized by undue love of self. #1, disregard is irrational. #2, I'm not sure how to qualify undue love of self, can one love one's self to extreme? So, the conclusion of this brief, informal survey is that there is too much lacking in these definitions of selfishness. I cannot, in good faith, accept the concept when there is so much disparity. Wiki had it right, but it's a lone wolf amongst a forest of incorrectness. I'm actually impressed because usually people piss all over me when I reference Wiki.

Hi Tony, No, I am mortal. lol I had a concussion once. Damn if that didn't feel like living death. It's cool. I know what you meant. I'm just being a stickler lately. Nothing wrong with getting creative with the English language either. It's just stuff like philosophy where words mean a lot, and I don't think it's appropriate to just start making shit up, so to speak. I know that's not what you were trying to do. I maybe crossed a line there. In any case, I think there's a permanency about death. Someone who had a concussion or is just not philosophically alert has the potential to recover. My dead grandma, who I loved, doesn't get to have that luxury. I have a distinct respect for death.

I started a new thread to examine the definition of selfishness. We can't go anywhere further in this thread with my original question until this is settled.

It's clear to me that the popular accepted definition of selfish is an irrational selfishness. We can debate this issue, if we must, but I think that it is absolutely clear. selfish 1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> It's not just the dictionary. Just ask any non-Objectivist what it means to be selfish, and they'll probably use all kinds of words which describe irrational selfishness. Why must Objectivists endure this scarlet letter, this slur against Objectivism? We have a choice. I chose to reject the word and reject the scorn of being perceived as any kind of irrational person in even the slightest way. The solution is to reject the word selfish and replace the word with an equivalent phrase. I'd like to use the phrase rational self interest as a replacement for the term selfishness, but I will also debate the appropriate replacement phrase, if I must. From VOS intro:

I disagree entirely! capitalism an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market I see no conflict here. free speech : speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ; also : the right to such speech <an unconstitutional restraint on free speech — National Law Journal> To my best understanding, Rand supports the U.S. constitution. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the finer points which she may be addressing in her definition. But I think there is no conflict here. I'll skip the concept of censorship because I think it's covered under free speech. monopoly 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly This should be self explanatory. No problem here. But here is what Rand had to say:

I disagree with the concept of "living death". Death is a permanent state. There is no living death, unless we are talking about fictional tales of zombies or whatever. death 1 a: a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life — compare brain death b: an instance of dying <a disease causing many deaths> 2 a: the cause or occasion of loss of life <drinking was the death of him> b: a cause of ruin <the slander that was death to my character — Wilkie Collins> 3capitalized : the destroyer of life represented usually as a skeleton with a scythe 4: the state of being dead 5 a: the passing or destruction of something inanimate <the death of vaudeville> b: extinction6: civil death 7: slaughter 8Christian Science : the lie of life in matter : that which is unreal and untrue I love the Einstein quote, BTW. It's a new one for me.

purpose something set up as an object or end to be attained I think purpose is what one must bring to Objectivism. I don't think Objectivism can give one a purpose. One has to come up with a purpose on their own. Objectivism is more of a vehicle to hone in on that purpose and achieve that purpose. Objectivism does speak about survival, but more as a vehicle to fulfill one's purpose, whatever that may be. One has a tough time fulfilling a purpose if they do not physically exist, I imagine. Survival is not an end in itself unless that happens to be one's sole purpose. The choice of purpose seems to me to be outside the scope of Objectivism. Although choice of purpose is outside the scope of Objectivism, Objectivism does put constraints upon what type of purpose one must choose. For example, if one's purpose is in any way irrational, Objectivism will be in conflict because Objectivism claims rationality as a core concept. So, even though one has a wide range of choice in purpose within Objectivism, there are absolutely some limitations especially if one's choice of purpose is unrealistic or irrational. As an aside, I know the question of purpose might be a foreign concept to one that is coming from a religious background. The Bible defines a pretty specific purpose for one's life: worship God. Worship basically entails, following the scripture and rituals as well as trying to live by the concepts of whatever of the various religions that exist at any point in time. Many of us are probably familiar with western culture and Christianity, so purpose revolves around "the reckoning" or afterlife or whatever. For Objectivists, by comparison, there is no afterlife, so whatever purpose there might be is strictly defined within the scope of one's mortal life span, at least that's my understanding and an interesting contrast to Christianity, for example.

I appreciate all of the responses. I do need to slow down, Marc makes a good point. I make several claims and then make further claims going further. I realize I'm going too fast. So, let me get everyone aboard with one singular premise. Rand's definition of selfishness is opposite of the publicly accepted definition of selfishness. Go ask anyone who is not an Objectivist. Ask them is selfishness good or is selfishness evil. Ask them if selfishness is rational or if selfishness is irrational. Ask them if selfishness is caring for the ones one loves, or is it just the opposite. The dictionary says that selfishness means disregard towards others. I can't work with that kind of definition. I can't change that definition. I'll never tell anyone that I am selfish because it means that I'm evil, irrational, uncaring. That's quite the opposite of what I am and claim to be. We can't even touch the definition of altruism because it's defined in terms of selfishness. Ben has correctly pointed that out to me. I think that unselfishness does apply to both parts of that definition. But I've got to toss altruism out the window for the same reason as throwing selfishness out the window. If this is true, then they've poisoned the water. There is no antidote. We must drink from a different source. They can play semantic games, but the Objectivist concepts remain intact. Objectivism simply needs some slight semantic translation to remain coherent in terms of common use of the English language.

Thanks. I'm now very much out of my nutshell, if you happen to stroll over to my thread in "questions". I agree with the rest of what you are saying. As I said in a different thread, when I look in the mirror, I don't see Ayn Rand. The reason why I am curious about what Ayn Rand might think about something is purely as a student of her philosophy. I absolutely have my own independent philosophy, which I am constantly working to cultivate. I'm not sure how much I will ultimately be influenced by Objectivism, but for the moment I'm certainly grabbing the bull by the horns!

I'm going to break down the word altruism into it's components based on the given definition. 1.a.unselfish regard for the welfare of others 1.b. devotion to the welfare of others Now I'm going to change 1.a. with an inline replacement with a synonym of unselfish. unselfish : not selfish : generous 1.a.generous regard for the welfare of others 1.b. devotion to the welfare of others Ok, now the question becomes, is it ever rational to be generous or devoted to the welfare of others? Did Rand ever have a generous regard for the welfare of others? Did Rand ever have a devotion to the welfare of others? My answer is yes, if you are talking about her husband. I'm still undecided to what degree she valued her followers of Objectivism. This is a tough question. So, what's wrong with RSI towards another person? Nothing. I think it's rational, as well as altruistic by my breakdown of the definition. Trust me, altruism will be the next swear word on my list. I've just got to come up with a replacement, which I haven't quite figured out the perfect word or phrase yet. But Rand's concept of altruism really means coerced charity as my preliminary phrase choice. hunterrose, I think we are simply knotted up in definitions after reading your post again. I'll let you respond with a fresh slate if you care to take into consideration the work that I've done to this point in these last posts.

hunterrose & Thales, I read your replies and they are good replies to which I'd like to respond. But, I want to try to clear something up before I go further. I'm done with the word selfish entirely. From here forward, it's a swear word to me. I'm going to go through all of my Rand books with white out tape and write RSI (Rational Self Interest) in it's place. I think Rand's meaning is maintained, in fact I think she uses RSI interchangeably sometimes. So, (irrational) selfishness is dead to me in all forms. I'd like to encourage anyone else who reads this to join to using the term RSI as well. If I encounter the swear word on this forum, I'll replace it in my mind with RSI. If I respond to quotes, I'm going to replace the swear word with RSI if I see it. I'm very serious about this because I know the swear word will never be accepted as a good word beyond Objectivists and there's rational need to fight it. We are writers, we are creative, there are other rational options to express the concept. There's no need to cling to a dead word any more than to a dead child.

Hi Marc. I definitely feel twisted around. But like I said, I think I'm confused about the definitions of things. If I can't use the dictionary, where do I go? I don't feel that Rand's writing has the authority or responsibility to act as a dictionary. She's simply not in the dictionary business. I agree that life is the ultimate value. But, Ayn Rand says specifically that I'll concede that I'm not married and that's probably where this gets confusing for me. Thanks for the help, Marc, and everyone else. I'll try to reply more as I get time.

Here's some more from the Playboy interview that I kinda referenced in my very first post above. The first part talks about a unique circumstance of ultimate self sacrifice. The last part in quotes is maybe my favorite Rand quote. I think the quote indicates a type of greater good she sees in her philosophy.