Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


freestyle last won the day on August 19 2010

freestyle had the most liked content!


About freestyle

  • Birthday 02/02/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Recent Profile Visitors

5028 profile views

freestyle's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (5/7)



  1. Also, oppressor and/or oppression is another English word for this concept which is not inherent to selfishness.
  2. Is that really all that would be overlapping? Hmmm... I'd have to think about that for a while... I think there is a big distinction on the timeframe and whether or not something LEGITIMATELY is beneficial to individual. Mainstream probably actually thinks being selfish is bad for the self.... i think...
  3. That is kinda like "compassionate" conservative... And you're right that it sends the wrong message. I think it is more about communicating as clearly as possible that selfishness is not the equivalent to the disregarding of rights. People tend to assume selfishness must include a victim. It does not. In future discussions, I'll try using something along the following lines when somebody uses an improper example of selfishness: "No, that's not a selfish person, that's a victimizer. I'm just as much anti-victimization as I am pro-selfishness." We'll see how that goes... 🧐
  4. Yes. To put a finer point on it, I'm looking to identify the concept being packaged with selfishness which contradicts and/or confuses. I want to extricate it so that those non-related packaged associations have their proper place. I continue to find it hard to accept that those things (like indifference, negligence and malice towards others) are not already contained in a well established concept. (And especially a commonly understood word or concept) If not, it would be quite telling that those behaviors are only packaged in a way that includes an assumed un-earned benefit only to the self. Tricky! While looking at some other threads about this... I saw a post where @Grames mentioned these types of things as "a kind of metaphysical solipsism in practical everyday action." With the given examples, yes, that would apply. But it still packages the negative actions in service of the self... This thread has helped me refine my focus to the willingness to "sacrifice others" through "indifference, negligence, or malice," but REGARDLESS and INDEPENDENT of who benefits.
  5. Another reason I like this so much is that it takes the focus OFF of the self, while also illustrating sacrifice as a negative. That helps unpackage it from selfishness very nicely and in line with Rand's philosophy. And you did it in two words... good stuff! Rand, of course, used this phrase often but usually related to the sacrificing to one's self. But in fact, this negative behavior that people generally lump together with "selfishness" is not necessarily always to service one's self (whether rationally or irrationally). Think of the do-gooder who is ok sacrificing others for "the good of society." This makes me think there is another possible strong contender for the word... although I'm not sure yet whether this also comes with baggage. What about: Victimizer Victimization I can imagine it being a cleaner and a more clear explanation to say something along the lines of, "Yes, I'm always in favor of selfishness, but I'm never in favor of victimization." ...still trying to figure this out...
  6. Yeah, it feels like that... but I am still convinced that it must be out there. 🤔
  7. That's pretty great! Is there a word that means "sacrificing others"? I did a quick google search and saw a suggestion of "utilitarian"... But I'm certain the Utilitarian would disagree. 🙂
  8. Well this is the crux of my post-- I'm not satisfied that the concept does not exist in the English language. My sense is that it must, I (we) just haven't discovered or identified it... yet. I may have "buried the lede" to some degree in my initial post. Indeed I have come up with two working terms that I feel do a better (but not completely satisfactory job) of communicating the concept that relates to the specific part of selfishness that Objectivists do not consider as selfish (but so many others do, and even may consider it the primary type of example). My best working terms are: Self-Absorption Self-Obsession Both of these terms seem to satisfy as descriptors for the examples of behaviors in my original post (chicken wing guy and make-up lady). However, I'm still not completely comfortable using those terms because, "obsession" and "absorption," while typically associated with negatives, may be a "package-deal," similar to the trick used by those who exploit the words "extreme" or "extremism." (See Extremism: Or The Art of Smearing - A.R.) I'd prefer not to further muddy the concept if possible. Perhaps obsession with or absorption in "the good," isn't bad. This is why I do not think it suffices and why I'm seeking a definition. We (Objectivists, rational thinkers, etc...) will continually endeavor to educate that the type of examples commonly held by so many about this term are not truly examples of selfishness. As the title of this post states, this only gets us half way... We must be able to explain what that distinction is, and DEFINE it in a clear way that shows it is NOT "subsumed" under the single concept of "selfishness." Yes, I can do this with a lot of words.... But I want to do it with the overarching concept. This distinction is important. A rational person knows those behaviors are negative, yet we have not unentangled them from the word "selfish," and as long as those examples are packaged with selfishness, it will continually be difficult to communicate selfishness as a virtue. Those types of examples require a new home. You are correct, and I assume most of us who understand Rand and Objectivism concur. But again, it doesn't identify and define this greater concept (that I'm looking for). Those terms, "social unawareness" or "social blindness," would surely soften the negativity and destructive nature (to one's self). They make it seem like an oversight or an accident. Whereas, in truth, those behaviors are more than "not selfish", they are, in the long term, self-destructive. True. And you can get very specific (and that's what we usually do) for any of these typical misunderstandings of "selfishness." As I typed it above, I thought, "self-destructive" is another term that seems to work for this entire category/concept of behaviors incorrectly described as selfish. But it does not define a single concept OUTSIDE of selfishness that distinguishes itself. It would be too broad to simply say that it is the "opposite" of selfish, because that would place it in the category of altruism, which isn't not where it belongs either.
  9. I just came across the below video… Why Use the Word “Selfishness”? YouTube TheObjectivistStandard C. Biddle And this is something I’ve been kicking around for about 12 years now… and I still don’t have a good answer. Biddle does a solid job of explaining and reiterating what Rand said at the start of TVOS. While understanding that is important, there is a very important aspect of the question that the explanation misses. I have found that most people (even altruists) understand this relatively easily as a “different definition of selfishness” than they typically perceive (whether in whole or in part). I have been looking for the word that describes the negative/destructive conception of the “selfish” that they continue to conceive even after understanding why we use that word. The guy who pushes past a buffet line and takes ALL the chicken wings for himself leaving none for others. The woman who holds up traffic at a green light because her makeup isn’t finished and she has an important meeting. We would explain by using additional descriptions to explain this is not “rational” or “long term” selfishness. Or redefine (in thier opinion) to say that this is not actually in one’s self interest so therefore it isn’t selfishness as we are defining it. But then what is the broad concept or word for those behaviors? (The broadest word to define the concept) I’m not looking for the specific word to define those specific examples. I’m suggesting that many hold those examples as their primary conception of the word selfish. And all we do is tell them, no, that’s not selfish, that is… [what]?
  10. That's the very straightforward Objectivist way of answering the question. Another is dream_weaver's logical point... i.e. If we're in a simulation, then what is the "thing" running the simulation? @dream_weaver I remember Ayn Rand said this in some form (maybe in a Q&A), do you remember the source? I think it was in the context of showing that even if we were in a simulation, it wouldn't disprove existence because a computer would have to be running the simulation.
  11. This is not the basis for an Objectivist's defense of property rights. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html Your productive effort is what sustains your life. Your rights to the products of your efforts are essentially the right to your own life. "Commercial" use of the idea is the issue.
  12. I've been thinking about this a lot. For this example, I think "self-entitled" is the accurate derogatory term. "Entitled" can imply that there is an element of expecting the "unearned". Here I would go with "self-absorbed" (while self-entitled still works too). "Absorbed" here can imply a short-sighted individual who is what Rand might call a whim worshiper, as opposed to a "self-interested" person who is rationally concerned with themselves in a wider, full context, long-term view.
  13. I've read it once and listened to the audio book once. Coincidentally, I also just purchased this book over the weekend: Who is John Galt?: A Navigational Guide to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged I had seen a lot of the source material for this book in searching online. It started from a book-club reading that launched a long forum discussion and then the authors turned it into a book. So far it is an interesting read-- seems well researched... Kinda like an extreme version of "Cliff Notes" but with more detail, discussion and depth... (so far).
  14. Thanks... I found that same site after I posted. Not sure what to make of it, but it doesn't appear crashed.
  15. Very prescient! It seems there is now an opportunity to validate this prediction. Where can you check the "price" (over time) of Bitcoins?
  • Create New...