freestyle
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by freestyle
-
-
8 hours ago, Craig24 said:
I thought I would create a venn diagram to describe the mainstream vs Objectivist view of selfishness. There is disagreement on what selfishness is and some agreement as well as disagreement on what is selfish. Of course a portion of the mainstream does support capitalism but does not define it correctly or support for the right reasons.
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...
-
7 hours ago, Boydstun said:
"Considerate Selfishness" may exclude the foul element of concern.
I don't much care for it, [...]
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 hours ago, Craig24 said:
What I'm seeing here is that you want a single word that covers the false part of the conventional package deal meaning of selfishness. Let me try something:
Selfishness = acting to benefit yourself through indifference, negligence or malice towards others.
Is there one single word to subsume the red part?
....
You present quite a challenge.
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 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
Another possible description is "sacrificing others". This gets at a key confusion in popular concepts of "selfishness".
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!
QuoteHe must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. (from Atlas Shrugged)
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...
-
4 hours ago, tadmjones said:
The problem may stem from a linguistic / grammatical 'lack' in English .
Yeah, it feels like that... but I am still convinced that it must be out there. 🤔
-
12 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
Another possible description is "sacrificing others". This gets at a key confusion in popular concepts of "selfishness".
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. 🙂
-
18 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
No one word can capture all "they" mean when they say selfish. It is a combination of a whole host of possible vices combined with appearing to act for oneself (at least superficially). There is a misidentification of what the long term self interest is, so it is self-sabotage, misguided selfishness, shortsightedness, ignorance, idiocy?
How to sum up a simpleton's selfishness?... no easy task.
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.
18 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:Rather than try to come up with a different word, it suffices to point out that "selfishness" in not the proper characterization and the specific instance is better described by [insert particular short term vice here].
QuoteLet me remind you that the purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things subsumed under a single concept from all other things in existence: and, therefore, their defining characteristic must always be that essential characteristic which distinguishes them from everything else. - Ayn Rand (See Extremism: Or The Art of Smearing - A.R.)
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.
9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:I would agree that there is no one term that would do it justice but I got comfortable with the following:
The vice is "social unawareness" or "social blindness" where a person is not aware of the benefits of the people around them. In the examples you put, it is objectively NOT to the benefit to anyone of us to be consistently be like that. And in terms of rational egoism, if something is NOT to your benefit, it isn't selfish. So these behaviors to an Objectivist would not be considered selfish.
[...]
A socially blind person will act as if no one matters, or no one is around when people are around, which can be dangerous to everyone concerned.
The issue that Rand was attacking was selflessness, AKA altruism.
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.
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:Another way of describing this is as a violation of rules you have implicitly agreed to by entering a situation. If you take food from a buffet, you are implicitly agreeing to a rule about sharing the food. If you drive on a road that is not your private road, you implicitly agree to a number of rules, including not obstructing traffic.
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.
-
I just came across the below video…
Why Use the Word “Selfishness”? YouTube TheObjectivistStandard C. BiddleAnd 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]? -
19 hours ago, 2046 said:
It doesn't really make sense to believe any old thing until it's disproven, that's not how cognition works.
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.
-
Individualists are strongly in favor of property rights, but we must ask why do we want property rights? We want them because property is scarce.
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.
How does use of an idea by someone else result in loss of use of that idea?
"Commercial" use of the idea is the issue. -
There is one common use of the word selfish, which I hope to find a good word or phrase as replacement. I will first give an example of the word, then attempt to give a good definition.
For my example, I'm going to use Medicare. I was watching a politically conservative commentator who was interviewing a group of 'tea-party' senior citizens. After many of them proclaimed how wrong it was for government to grow, for everyone to pay for everyone's medical care, for bailouts, and so forth, somebody said, "And they're cutting our medicare benefits?"
WHAT THE HELL? Why can't a senior say, "Yeah, you know, I voted for Medicare supporting politicians, I relied on Medicare, and I was wrong. I deserve to reap the consequences of my immoral and irrational years of evading reality." ?
Along those lines, why the hell should we send troops to stabilize regions with oil so we can buy it from the area's dictator's? We're not entitled to that oil (there's a broader argument about whether we can appropriate it directly, but lets ignore that).
Normally, these examples are of something that our modern culture calls 'selfishness'. Yes, technically, the issue at hand is self-interest. The seniors benefit from not having to cover their own medical expenses (above and beyond anything they ever paid into Medicare). But it's not rational self-interest.
So what's a good word/phrase for: a character trait that pursues self-interest in a manner that requires for its successful completion an objectively improper exploitation of others through a violation of their rights.
This is characterized too by a paranoid, vicious sense of entitlement. If I feel like I've really worked for something, I'll defend my right to it - if reality is on my side. But this sort of 'selfishness' involves a sense of entitlement to whatever might be available - only because it's available.
Another example: People with pre-existing conditions who ride mild thrill rides, and get injured, and sue. Their suits have nothing to do with the proper functioning of the ride, and are merely about "they have money, I want money, I got lucky because I got hurt". WHAT THE HELL?
So, what's the word?
I would say 'entitlement princess', but it doesn't have a ring, and barely connotes viciousness. 'terrified by reality' is maybe another. 'spiritually void'. Help me out here.
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".
Oh my...I was actually thinking about this last night. I went to a party and they served chips or something, and this guy came and pretty much took hold of everything, without giving a damn about anyone else in the room. Everyone was so upset and started talking about how selfish he was and everything, but I was just looking for some other word. Maybe this isn't a good example, but I was basically looking for something to replace "irrational self-interest" too. Something that can also fit your examples.
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.
-
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).
-
-
I'd be most worried about the hacking potential. All it takes is one news story that a large hacking attack has taken place, and people will sell like crazy, sending the price plummeting.
Very prescient! It seems there is now an opportunity to validate this prediction.
Where can you check the "price" (over time) of Bitcoins?
-
He says that in his history of philosophy course when talking about Heraclitus and his idea, in which LP agrees, that the universe has to be a plenum because "there can't be nothing", nothing cannot exist.
LP goes over some questions on the Universe in these links:
http://www.peikoff.com/page/6/?s=universe#list
http://www.peikoff.com/page/5/?s=universe#list
In the first link, in an answer, he makes the claim that there is existence, a plenum by his accounts, filled to the brim with existents, whether that be protons, neutrons, electrons, and presumably some unknown other stuff we haven't discovered yet, and then there is a boundary to it and non-existence. He claims that if you were to try to travel to that boundary, and "through" it, you physically couldn't.
To me, as soon as you put forth this claim to a "boundary", the next thing I think of is a boundary between what and what. That other what beings something that exists, not some "non-existence", it seems ludicrous to me.
When you say my hands are the existents in the plenum argument, no, not according to LP, there would have to be some other existents in between them. He would not accept any absence of entities in between them.
I missed the LP reference to "plenum" (if it was there in those links), and I definitely did not take away from those discussions that he is saying the world is literally "filled" with matter (or, "existents") and, further, that voids in space are impossible. This is just to say that I still don't understand the source of this "plenum" question.
But, if I am correct,you are disputing a supposed claim that says, (paraphrasing), "No measurable or definable aspect of the universe is without some entity."
Perhaps this is both a physics and philosophical question.
Best way I can say it is going back to my two hands analogy:
The space between your two hands is a distance. The plenum argument says that there must be other existents in that space (distance).
If you wish to discount distance as an existent, then how would you answer the following question:
If "nothing" exists between my two hands, then why aren't they touching each other?
-
You are treating space as an existent, in that second sentence. All that space is is a relationship concept between existents. The space between your two hands is a distance. The plenum argument says that there must be other existents in that space (distance). I am saying that is not necessary. When I say space is a relational concept, how is that affirming that non-existence exists?
I was, yes, for the purpose of illustrating something. When I say to imagine nothingness not being, it should be read as an obvious contradiction. While it doesn't make sense, it does (for me) make it very clear that I cannot have an "edge of," or the "outside of," the universe. That is also a contradiction.
The plenum argument, as I think you're representing it, would take into account your hands (ie. the entities that allow you to identify the measurement of "the" space) and therefore would account for the existents you mention.
But I was most definitely not affirming that non-existence exists. The opposite is true. Existence existes.
But just to be clear: When you say, "I don't understand, however, why the universe has to be a plenum", can you point to exactly where you got that from (if I missed it above). I'd like to read it in full context.
-
I think of it by imagining myself floating in outer space and holding my hands about a foot apart from each other. Looking at the "space" in-between my hands, I try to imagine what it would mean for that space not to exist (or not to be possible, if you prefer).
As you mentioned, the "empty space" does not exist as an entity. Its identity is a relational measurement. So, for as many events that are known, you have a definite (not infinite) size of the universe.
So, perhaps the answer to you would be that the "infinite amount of events" you mentioned is simply a contradiction in terms because an "amount" is, by definition, finite.
You could also flip it and go the other way (kinda like your example of scaling the universe down). Take a grain of sand and you can measure distances smaller and smaller across that grain for as long as you have decimal points. In that case you're measuring an actual entity the whole time... and you can still measure forever.
*Disclaimer on above: I think. :-)
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there was a lot of discussion around this subject in this thread: The Potential Infinity Contradiction
-
Mackey said, "Parents routinely sacrifice their own self-interests for the sake of their children."
This strikes me as odd since, if he has read Rand, he would have known very specifically the Objectivist view on sacrifice. If he doesn't accept the context in which Rand explains selfishness and sacrifice, then what is the point of the debate?
From Galt's Speech:If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions. -
That doesn't disprove determinism.
(edit: Grammar)
It does if determinism defines choice as an illusion.
It clearly shows the infinite regress of that thinking. If something is "determined" to happen, then it must happen. If something is (supposedly) "determined" and a human choice can alter that, then it proves free will. If determinism stands on the principle that no matter what choice you make it will always (retroactivley) have been determined AND there is no way to prove it by allowing for an experiment in human choice that can be validated, then the concept is meaningless.
-
No. But (as far as I'm concerned) the following disproves determinism:
Consider someone being told in advance what trivial choice they are about to make. Consider the fact that they would be told in advance was also known.
Now try to imagine a human being unable to go against what was "predetermined."
(If one defines determinism without the "pre" aspect, then they are really only saying that things cause other things.)
-
A simple disclaimer on the back of the movie ticket could subvert this aversion, i.e.: tying your right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater to the consequences of yelling "fire" in the absence thereof.
Wouldn't that be like saying you have a right to swing a baseball bat? But since you swung it at random person's head, you'll be held responsible?
The essence of my question is whether or not it waters down the Objectivist definition of rights to include "anything" outside of infringing on other's rights. Perhaps some of these things are simply free actions one can take, but not "rights".
-
So, what is the aspect that you are questioning? I guess it is this: odd contexts excepted, it is always irrational to torture the dog. It is an example of an act that does not and cannot support one's life.
But, if so, what about some ritual -- say lighting a candle to the virgin Mary? Do you draw a link between that and life? Or, to take a more blatant example, what about suicide: does an educated, healthy person who can go out an earn a living have the right to suicide?
Or, are these questions missing the point you're trying to make? Do you think people do have the right to do a whole range of activities that do not support their lives (by a rational, objective evaluation), but things like torturing animals are a different category?
I am questioning whether or not it is correct to call certain things "rights" as Objectivism defines rights. Rand states that there is only one fundamental right (the right to life) and that other "rights" are corollaries. How do we delineate which corollaries to that fundamental right are valid?
Given that, it seems that you could say: The only right you have is your right to life. It is the "source" of all rights.
Then you could follow: You have a right to your property because it is an implementation of your right to life. (easily shown)
But I cannot see how I could make this one work: "You have a "right" (as defined in Objectivism) to torture animals as an implementation of your right to life."
softwareNerd: Given Rand's theory of rights, and what you posted, aren't you bound to agree with the statement in bold?
Cool.
I understand your point. I think that just because I have a right to do something, doesn't automatically make my action right. Example: I have the right of free speech, but if I lie to a friend, my action is wrong.
But you don't have a right to free speech (outside of the constitutional right). And even that is limited.
That one is famously batted down by the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Your right to free speech is not absolute. In the famous example, you can use your free speech to cause direct physical harm to people.
Your right to your own life is absolute.
-
One idea is a widget or rss feed of all news articles that mention Objectivism or Any Rand. I like to check these a lot and sometimes like to comment on the particularly vicious or erroneous ones. (and there are good / positive occurrences too)
-
Ok, I changed the post times to white and bold. I think it's pretty visible, what about you?
Also, I added a permanent redirect for "forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?app=portal" to point to the same URL but with .com, as that was the only version of the links that I got to not recognize me as being signed in. Regular "objectivismonline.com" and "objectivismonline.net" were already permanently redirected, and they all did the job correctly and kept me signed in. Is it working now?
Yes. Great work.
The dates are definitely more readable now when using the Statue of Liberty background image.
And, going to .net now redirects to .com and shows me as logged in.
Well done!
Why use the Word “Selfishness” explanation only gets you half way there
in Ethics
Posted · Edited by freestyle
Also, oppressor and/or oppression is another English word for this concept which is not inherent to selfishness.