The History of Language:

[Seeker]

Many words in our language use package deals, but we don't redefine them all.

No, we correct the ones that matter, whose package dealing inflicts the greatest harm. Surely your answer to not correcting every package deal that exists isn't correcting none of them?

So the vast majority will be repulsed when they hear selfishness described as a good thing? Most Christians would be repulsed if you stated that man is not his brother's keeper and has no automatic obligation to care for others. Environmentalists would be repulsed if you stated that the Earth is man's to use for his own needs, not to be preserved as pristine wilderness. It is the ideas they are repulsed by, not the words used to represent them, so why should their revulsion mean anything to us? As I said, they have to get used to considering ideas they find revolting if they're going to learn anything, so we may as well use the proper terms. And let me be clear: I think what they find revolting about the word "selfish" is its actual meaning, i.e. it is the non-selflessness of rational self-interest they are repulsed by, probably because they're either socialists or God-fearing Christian altruists, so it is absolutely correct to stick it to them directly. The meaning in common usage adds the word "excessive" to "self-interest", presupposing that there can be such a thing as excessive self-interest. That is precisely the lie that must be attacked to defeat altruism.

Given a harmful connotation that abuses the language for the purpose of harming man, as the usage of "selfish" as a pejorative does, we are right to insist upon the correct usage in framing the debate.

[B. Royce]

It has been said that most people, when they hear the word "selfish", think of people who cheat and abuse others to get what they want.

In my experience this is not true. A great majority of the times I have heard people use the word "selfish" is when a parent tells his child that he is being selfish because he won't share his toys, or wants to do what he wants without asking others, even when his desired actions will have no adverse affect on others. The implied message is: desiring something solely for yourself is wrong and, further, using your self, your mind, as the standard for judging your actions, is wrong.

I might add that in sports it is rather sickening to hear star players described (and describing themselves) as being selfless. It's too bad there aren't any gutsy reporters. Then it might be like this: a player says, "I don't want to win for myself, I want to win for the team." A reporter asks, "If you weren't part of the team, would you still want to win for the team?" "Well, uh, I mean, I want that Superbowl ring." "For whom? For the team? How big of a ring is it?"

The only way we'll get away from this kind of avoidance-of-selfishness nonsense is for courageous thinkers to speak out for selfishness, and not to give way to the child-bred fears of perpetual non-thinkers.

[The Wrath]

No, we correct the ones that matter, whose package dealing inflicts the greatest harm. Surely your answer to not correcting every package deal that exists isn't correcting none of them?

So the vast majority will be repulsed when they hear selfishness described as a good thing? Most Christians would be repulsed if you stated that man is not his brother's keeper and has no automatic obligation to care for others. Environmentalists would be repulsed if you stated that the Earth is man's to use for his own needs, not to be preserved as pristine wilderness. It is the ideas they are repulsed by, not the words used to represent them, so why should their revulsion mean anything to us? As I said, they have to get used to considering ideas they find revolting if they're going to learn anything, so we may as well use the proper terms. And let me be clear: I think what they find revolting about the word "selfish" is its actual meaning, i.e. it is the non-selflessness of rational self-interest they are repulsed by, probably because they're either socialists or God-fearing Christian altruists, so it is absolutely correct to stick it to them directly. The meaning in common usage adds the word "excessive" to "self-interest", presupposing that there can be such a thing as excessive self-interest. That is precisely the lie that must be attacked to defeat altruism.

Given a harmful connotation that abuses the language for the purpose of harming man, as the usage of "selfish" as a pejorative does, we are right to insist upon the correct usage in framing the debate.

I think you overestimate the altruistic nature of most people. Most people, in this country, would see nothing wrong with a man who wants to start his own business so that he can make lots of money and buy a big house with nice cars. Most people would, however, have a problem with a man who sneaks into his competitors building at night to steal plans for an invention, patents it before the competitor gets a chance to do so, and then proceeds to get rich off of the idea. The latter situation would better fit the popular definition of "selfish." The first would fit the Randian definition, but the average person would not call him selfish. They would call him ambitious or self-interested.

[DavidOdden]

To be quite frank, I don't care what the dictionary says.

Okay, but then how do you propose to prove that Rand has redefined the word "selfish"? You don't seem to know what the referent of the concept selfish is, and you've completely confused yourself about the difference between the concretes and your attitude towards the concretes. Common usage of the word is entirely in conformity with Rand's usage. And you have yet to do something as simple as put your money where your mouth is when it comes to trotting out "Rand's definition of 'selfish'".

Your "logic" would also say that Rand should not be a capitalist, because for some people, capitalists are evil. Rand should not discuss morality, because morality is claimed by many to be religious. And Rand should not ever speak of rights, except "right to an education", "right to a decent job" and all of those other things that used to be called "entitlements".

Let me repeat, in case you didn't get it: Rand does not redefine the word "selfish", in using the word, she is referring to the same concretes as are referred to by other people speaking the English language, and the oly difference is that some people do not understand that selfishness is a virtue.

[The Wrath]

Okay, but then how do you propose to prove that Rand has redefined the word "selfish"? You don't seem to know what the referent of the concept selfish is, and you've completely confused yourself about the difference between the concretes and your attitude towards the concretes. Common usage of the word is entirely in conformity with Rand's usage. And you have yet to do something as simple as put your money where your mouth is when it comes to trotting out "Rand's definition of 'selfish'".

Your "logic" would also say that Rand should not be a capitalist, because for some people, capitalists are evil. Rand should not discuss morality, because morality is claimed by many to be religious. And Rand should not ever speak of rights, except "right to an education", "right to a decent job" and all of those other things that used to be called "entitlements".

Let me repeat, in case you didn't get it: Rand does not redefine the word "selfish", in using the word, she is referring to the same concretes as are referred to by other people speaking the English language, and the oly difference is that some people do not understand that selfishness is a virtue.

Rand's definition of "selfish" as far as I can tell is "rational self-interest." And you're right in that I can't prove that this definition goes against popular usage. But, in my experience, it does, and I think that if you went out and asked people to define it, you would find that I am right.

Disregarding all moral judgements for a moment, capitalists and Marxists can both agree that "capitalism" refers to the system of free markets. One thinks they're good, one thinks they're bad. Disregarding moral judgements, Objectivists and non-Objectivists don't normally even agree on what "selfish" refers to. It isn't just a difference of one thinking selfishness is good and the other thinking selfishness is evil. It's that they have totally different ideas of what selfishness is. This is not the same issue in your example of capitalism, so that example doesn't really hold water. In your example, the two sides can agree on what the word represents, but disagree on the moral judgements. In the example of selfishness, the two sides don't even agree on the set of ideas that the word represents.

If they knew how she defined it, most people would not view Randian selfishness in an evil light. I believe that most people agree that it is fine and dandy to be interested in your own well-being and to want nice things for yourself. What most people think is evil is not rational self-interest, but rather the cheating and scheming that has become part of the popular definition of "selfish."

[Seeker]

If they knew how she defined it, most people would not view Randian selfishness in an evil light. I believe that most people agree that it is fine and dandy to be interested in your own well-being and to want nice things for yourself. What most people think is evil is not rational self-interest, but rather the cheating and scheming that has become part of the popular definition of "selfish."

So you would admit that altruists have stolen the word to create a package deal that equates rational self-interest with theft? Why then not take it back from them? Why allow our enemies to redefine words in ways that disable our arguments, forcing us to constantly abandon our terms, instead of fighting for what the correct definitions are? Why disarm ourselves while arming them by handing them the power of our own language to use against us? That is exactly what your approach does. It says that others can change the popular usage to suit themselves and we have to follow what they say, but we can't change it, because the popular usage is automatically correct. You fail to see that we are players in determining what the popular usage is going to be. We, as much as anyone, have the power to shape the popular usage. If the term was stolen and made an illegitimate package deal that is anti-man, the only correct course is to take it back and give it its proper, rational, reality-based meaning. But we can't even attempt that if the prevailing usage, no matter how wrong it may be, is taken as authoritative.

I am not convinced that you are right that the word has in fact been redefined as you suggest - but if it has, then that is ample reason to take it back to its correct meaning.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Seeker

[The Wrath]

So you would admit that altruists have stolen the word to create a package deal that equates rational self-interest with theft? Why then not take it back from them? Why allow our enemies to redefine words in ways that disable our arguments, forcing us to constantly abandon our terms, instead of fighting for what the correct definitions are? Why disarm ourselves while arming them by handing them the power of our own language to use against us? That is exactly what your approach does. It says that others can change the popular usage to suit themselves and we have to follow what they say, but we can't change it, because the popular usage is automatically correct. You fail to see that we are players in determining what the popular usage is going to be. We, as much as anyone, have the power to shape the popular usage. If the term was stolen and made an illegitimate package deal that is anti-man, the only correct course is to take it back and give it its proper, rational, reality-based meaning. But we can't even attempt that if the prevailing usage, no matter how wrong it may be, is taken as authoritative.

I am not convinced that you are right that the word has in fact been redefined as you suggest - but if it has, then that is ample reason to take it back to its correct meaning.

I don't think that the word equates rational self-interest with theft. I don't think rational self-interest factors into the definition at all. Surely you wouldn't be opposed to the existence of a word like the one I am describing...one where people steal and cheat to fulfil their own hedonistic pleasures. Rational self-interest is nowhere in there.

[Seeker]

I don't think that the word equates rational self-interest with theft. I don't think rational self-interest factors into the definition at all. Surely you wouldn't be opposed to the existence of a word like the one I am describing...one where people steal and cheat to fulfil their own hedonistic pleasures. Rational self-interest is nowhere in there.

Except that concern for one's own (actual, rational) interests is the definition of the word. So of course it is a package-deal. The way to deal with it is to use the word correctly, according to its actual definition. Now if you want a word that describes "where people steal and cheat to fulfil their own hedonistic pleasures", I suppose there's "hedonistic". Maybe someone else can think of a better word for that. In any event, it's no excuse for accepting the misuse of a word with a definite moral meaning for the purpose of distorting and destroying morality, as the redefinition of "selfish" does.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Seeker

[The Wrath]

You're missing my point. I am saying that words cannot have definite moral meanings, unless that moral meaning is ascribed to them by popular usage. For my entire lifetime, selfish has been popularly used as describing practices that people on these boards would find morally repugnant. I suspect it has meant that for a quite a bit longer than my 25 years.

I don't think that rational self-interest even factors into it, the way most people would define it. It is certainly in our rational self-interest to eat food, but can you imagine someone saying that you're selfish for eating dinner? Around an Objectivist dinner table perhaps, but nowhere else. Next time you eat dinner with a non-Objectivist, ask them if they consider it selfish to eat dinner. Then ask if they consider eating dinner to be an act of self-interest. My hunch is that they will answer no to the first but yes to the second.

[Seeker]

You're missing my point. I am saying that words cannot have definite moral meanings, unless that moral meaning is ascribed to them by popular usage.

And you're missing my point - see post #31 above, on surrendering popular usage to the enemy. I thoroughly disagree that the definition of "selfish" excludes self-interest - that is bizarre indeed. Now, if the popular usage means excessive self-interest, then the package deal should be perfectly evident - self-interest is definitely in there in such a way as to render it bad (because if it were good there could be no such thing as too much of it). I think that is the more likely explanation for your dinner scenario: it might be considered selfish to eat dinner if you ate an amount considered excessive in relation to others. The proper response (in addition to eating your fill) is to insist upon the correct meaning and reject the one that says that self-interest can be excessive, because to accept that is to accept altruism.

[The Wrath]

And you're missing my point - see post #31 above, on surrendering popular usage to the enemy. I thoroughly disagree that the definition of "selfish" excludes self-interest - that is bizarre indeed. Now, if the popular usage means excessive self-interest, then the package deal should be perfectly evident - self-interest is definitely in there in such a way as to render it bad (because if it were good there could be no such thing as too much of it). I think that is the more likely explanation for your dinner scenario: it might be considered selfish to eat dinner if you ate an amount considered excessive in relation to others. The proper response (in addition to eating your fill) is to insist upon the correct meaning and reject the one that says that self-interest can be excessive, because to accept that is to accept altruism.

I don't think it excludes self-interest, as such, but rather, it excludes rational self-interest as defined by Objectivism. I don't think you offer a very convincing rebuttal to the dinner scenario. While I think that people in this thread have overestimated the altruistic tendencies of the American people, I do admit that most Americans hold at least some altruistic views. Yet, when you go out to eat with these people, they will not accuse someone of selfishness for overeating. I have a friend who consistently eats his entire plate of food, then whatever everyone else doesn't want, all the while drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers...and he's actually not particularly fat. This is definitely overeating, but all my friends just react with a sort of mild amusement that he is able to eat so much, especially compared to the normal-sized meals that the rest of us have. I've never heard anyone accuse him of being selfish.

I don't think most people would say that genuine self-interest can be excessive. Certainly, no one that I know would say that a person can be too concerned about his own well-being or his own happiness.

I don't understand how you think that a word can be hijacked. Some questions for you: Do you think that words have an inherent meaning that is immutable and transcendental? Would you be opposed to the creation of a word that is defined in the same way that I have defined "selfish?" If not, why does it make a difference if that word is "selfish" as opposed to some other random conglomeration of vocal sounds?

Another issue I'd like to address before it gets brought up is that of the accusation that people often hear that so-and-so "only cares about himself." Typically, when people use this sort of accusation, they are talking about someone who consistently denies things to people that are important to him, for one reason or another. For instance, if I bought a brand new car and refused to ever let my wife drive it, I think that I could rightly be branded as an asshole. Of course, I wouldn't do that...I'd let her drive it. In Objectivist language, this would be a selfish act because her happiness is important to my own. But in common language, this is a selfless act, it is putting another person before myself, it is thinking about others, etc. An act that involves doing a favor for another person, but that grants a psychological benefit to the actor, is defined as a sacrifice by most of society, but as selfish acts by Objectivism. I recognize that you probably won't agree with this popular definition either, but I wanted to throw it out there that these definitions are in fact different, lest someone try to use such language as support for the idea that people really do disagree with rational self-interest, when they use these phrases.

[Adrian Hester]

The definition of a word is subjective.

So, you mean it varies from person to person? Well, actually, no you don't, as the rest of your postings make clear. A better way of making the point you're trying to make is that the meaning of a word is conventional. When you say a word, you expect (and have every reason to expect) your listeners to understand it. The connection between the sound and the sense of a word is in most cases essentially arbitrary (onomatopoeic words are exceptions), in the sense that any other combination of sounds could express that meaning equally well; however, this arbitrariness does not make social conventions subjective. These conventions are social facts--the very fact that you rely on them without a second thought to communicate shows this. Thus, in a certain important sense conventions are objective (hence the term social fact). They belong to the mental realm and thus can be described as subjective in another, different sense (in that they pertain exclusively to knowing subjects), true, but the same is true of every kind of social knowledge. The question is whether a given statement of a convention (such as, say, pronunciation rules or meanings of words or grammatical constructions or social practices or what-not) describes the portion of reality it applies to accurately; if so, it is objective knowledge of an objective fact about members of a given society or speakers of a given language.

It is subject to its common use. The same is true of grammar.

Language is a tool to communicate. In many circumstances there's no need to question common use, especially in quotidian doings. This is not true when you're discussing ideas, whether in science or philosophy, and especially when you're discussing ideas that are not common currency, when you must choose words carefully to express yourself. Generally what you are doing then is choosing words to express new distinctions in meaning, distinctions that are not part of the earlier meanings of words. This is obvious and uncontroversial in science, in which words like "radical," say, are constantly consciously redefined to express expanded knowledge of reality; the same is true (though perhaps it is less obvious) in philosophy. Does a new use of a word allow you to express a new or refined concept conveniently? If so, then it's useful. It doesn't matter if it's not part of common use. So long as you explain your new meaning clearly and show its usefulness, so what if it's not? And perhaps some day it will be--it might well be one of those practices you alluded to that will replace an older practice to fall out of use, perhaps even because it's a damned useful new meaning.

Look at my thread in the History subform, about 18th/19th century English. Rules have changed...not because some governing body of the English language decreed that they should change, but because certain practices fall out of use and are replaced by new ones.

And why did they change? Actually, there are many reasons that a language changes and most changes are unconscious and unplanned, even many changes in meaning. Some originated in conscious decisions, however, and caught on because of fashion or usefulness.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Adrian Hester

[IAmMetaphysical]

Would you be opposed to the creation of a word that is defined in the same way that I have defined "selfish?" If not, why does it make a difference if that word is "selfish" as opposed to some other random conglomeration of vocal sounds?

It is not proper to arbitrarily make up words and attach arbitrary meanings to them. There is definately a set of "rules" to follow in creating a new concept, and the rules are set by the identity of human consciousness. That is why it is not proper to have a concept that groups together such different attitudes toward oneself and others as the traditional usage of "selfish" does. There three types of atttidues in regards to the beneficiaries of actions: rationally(actually) beneficial to oneself, rationally beneficial to others, and not for anyone's benefit at all. The traditional usage of "selfish" lumps the first and last of these together based on a false belief that one's rational self interest necessitates the harming of others and that mutual benefit is impossible. That is why there is such a concept as "robber barons" to begin with.

[Maarten]

I think the main issue that may be confusing to people is that the particular concrete used to represent the concept does not matter, as long the concept it refers to is understood. I think that is the basis for claiming that the concrete is rather subjective, because it's just social convention that determines this. However, that does not change the fact that the concept the word represents is objective! Seeing how concepts are the most important part of language, and not the particular words used to give the concepts physical form, I think it is fair to say that in its essence, language is objective.

It's similar to other issues like manners. There are objective reasons why there are such things as manners, but there may be many different ways you could go about expressing a certain thing such as having respect for a person. However, that doesn't mean that expressing respect becomes completely subjective and you might as well do it as not do it.

[DavidOdden]

Rand's definition of "selfish" as far as I can tell is "rational self-interest."

Here is the first challenge: prove that assertion. The way you do that is provide quotations. The standard definition of selfish is "Concerned primarily of exclusively with one's own affairs". That is the definition Rand assumes. Now what is your complaint, other than perhaps some objection to selfishness? My diagnosis is that you don't see the connection between rational behavior and selfish behavior.

[Marty McFly]

wow! this thread became loong! I stil didn't get a chance to read the entire thread, but I would just like to answer some of the things.... Moose, at first I actually agreed with you about Rand's use of language. I even opened a thread complaining that she used words in the wrong popular context. HOWEVER: now that I conteplated it over time, I came to agree with seeker. Ayn Rand was, after all an artist of language; words. if she used them, she knew what she meant. she knew what she wanted to portray. this thread, I opened because now, that I "see the light" and I know that these words actually DO mean something good (selfish = a compliment to someone who has a developed sense of self, sacrifice = not a compliment, where someone forgets his own interests, his own values, and does something that another wants him to do) I realised that Ayn Rand looked at the dictionary, and used words in their LITERAL sense, and NOT in the way most people use them = which is phylosophically wrong

ok, now I will read on...........

[DavidOdden]

wow! this thread became loong!

Indeed. Something that I find puzzling about the Debate Forum is that it seems to have morphed so that it's no longer a debate forum. Instead, it's taken to be, well, I suppose a "brawling corner". I'm curious, do they have debates in high school these days? What I'm wondering is whether the word "debate" has gotten redefined in the past 10-20 years.

[Marty McFly]

Ah. Now this is something I have not thought of before. You're saying that the word selfish attaches murder, swindling, etc. to acting in ways that benefit onesself (physically and hedonistically, at the very least). Well, that makes sense and it is, so far, the only reasonable defense I have seen of Rand's redefinition of selfishness. But I still think that this misses the root of the issue, which is that there is no metaphysical or transcendental reason why words have to mean one thing, as opposed to another.

The colloquial definition of "selfish" may very well be a package deal, including things like murder and theft. But it is, nevertheless, the word's definition. Many words in our language use package deals, but we don't redefine them all. If you wish to separate the "self-interest" part of the word from all of the unethical parts of the word, why not just create a new word or string together several existing ones? "Self-interested" is the obvious choice. Few people would "equate self-interest" with pillage and rape. Whether you create a new word or string together existing ones, either option is easier and less confusing than redefining an existing word to mean something very different than what most people are used to.

why not create a new word???? because "Selfish" in it's LITERAL sense means something good. look at the definition of the word "selfish" (The one taken from a dictionary - not the way some biased people use it)

selfish:

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 for oneself: selfish motives.

selfless: having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.

ok I've got an even better explanation for this one:

someone who is a scientist and wants to prove that the world is round. everyone thinks he is crazy, but he, regardless of others followed his own interests and finally proved that the world if round.

Now there is a woman who hates her neighbors, hates to host partys, hates to be all proper and make partys for the annoying gossipping neighbors, but regardless of her own interests, she makes a party so that OTHERS should say she is the perfect hostess. she is the perfect example of someone who worries about others, regardless of her own likes or dislikes.

[Jeff Younger]

Here is the first challenge: prove that assertion. The way you do that is provide quotations. The standard definition of selfish is "Concerned primarily of exclusively with one's own affairs". That is the definition Rand assumes. Now what is your complaint, other than perhaps some objection to selfishness? My diagnosis is that you don't see the connection between rational behavior and selfish behavior.

I suspect you have redacted part of the definition you quoted. Can you link to it's source?

In "Virtue of Selfishness" (vii), Rand defines 'selfishness' as "concern with one's own interests." In all of Rand's works, the concerns of man are to be rational; hence, it is proper to understand "concern with one's own interests" to mean "rational concern with one's own interests." This is often abbreviated in common usage to "rational self-interest." I think I've proven the point.

You are wrong to claim that Rand followed the dictionary definition, or even common usage. In "Virtue of Selfishness," Rand acknowledges that she is not using 'selfish' according to common usage because most people include "disregard for others" in the denotation of 'selfish,' or at least in the connotation. Rand intentionally redefined the word against common usage, i.e. the dictionary definition. Your claims are false.

[Marty McFly]

I think you overestimate the altruistic nature of most people. Most people, in this country, would see nothing wrong with a man who wants to start his own business so that he can make lots of money and buy a big house with nice cars. Most people would, however, have a problem with a man who sneaks into his competitors building at night to steal plans for an invention, patents it before the competitor gets a chance to do so, and then proceeds to get rich off of the idea. The latter situation would better fit the popular definition of "selfish." The first would fit the Randian definition, but the average person would not call him selfish. They would call him ambitious or self-interested.

but do you see how the Randian explination is more CORRECT? look: the guy who wants to be rich and buy cars - and therefore works hard in opening his own business is selfish. but the guy who steals and cheats (even if he is selfish in nature) is not (or SHOULD not) be branded as "selfish" for the stealing and the cheating. if one steals and cheats, he should be called evil, mean, a criminal, etc. but being selfish does not make someone a stealer and a cheater.

and the average person indeed DOES call himself selfish. when I was a little kid in school, I remember the teacher preparing us for a trip and giving us a speach about how we should be nice to everyone, how we shouldn't be "Selfish", how we should help others enjoy the trip and not let anyone cry. I remember standing up and telling my teacher: "I am selfish. therefore I will make sure that everyone is happy, and be nice to everyone. because it depresses ME when others cry. and I want to enjoy the trip.

[The Wrath]

Here is the first challenge: prove that assertion. The way you do that is provide quotations. The standard definition of selfish is "Concerned primarily of exclusively with one's own affairs". That is the definition Rand assumes. Now what is your complaint, other than perhaps some objection to selfishness? My diagnosis is that you don't see the connection between rational behavior and selfish behavior.

Good God man, how many times do I have to explain this? If you define selfishness in the Randian way, then selfishness is great. Be as selfish as you can. I love it. I absolutely see the connection between rational and selfish behavior.

Why is it so hard to believe that I think Rand chose the wrong word to refer to a concept that I agree with?

Edited January 15, 2007 by Moose

[The Wrath]

but do you see how the Randian explination is more CORRECT?

The only "correct" definition for a word is the one that has the most widespread use. The exception to this would be words that are limited pretty much to science/philosophy, as the meaning of words is very often a matter of intense debates among the experts. For instance, the definitions of "relativity" and "epistemology" are not subject to popular use...partly because few people outside of science and philosophy use them. "Selfish," on the other hand, is a word used by pretty much anyone who speaks English. So, regardless of the fact that we are debating its philosophical meaning, I am arguing that its definition should remain subject to popular use.

So, no, I do not agree that her definition is more correct. In fact, I have stated a number of times that I consider it to be wrong. I really don't understand what's so controversial about suggesting that she should have chosen a word/phrase that is less confusing.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Moose

[Jeff Younger]

The only "correct" definition for a word is the one that has the most widespread use. The exception to this would be words that are limited pretty much to science/philosophy, as the meaning of words is very often a matter of intense debates among the experts. For instance, the definitions of "relativity" and "epistemology" are not subject to popular use...partly because few people outside of science and philosophy use them. "Selfish," on the other hand, is a word used by pretty much anyone who speaks English. So, regardless of the fact that we are debating its philosophical meaning, I am arguing that its definition should remain subject to popular use.

So, no, I do not agree that her definition is more correct. In fact, I have stated a number of times that I consider it to be wrong. I really don't understand what's so controversial about suggesting that she should have chosen a word/phrase that is less confusing.

I entirely agree. A word is a name for a concept; a word is not the concept it names. Concepts are objective, but the words that name concepts are conventional.

Claiming that Rand's definition of 'selfish' is more correct amounts to claiming that a particular concept is better named by one word than another. Re-defining a well-entrenched word risks obfuscation. Rand intentionally re-defined a well-entrenched word; intentionally or intentionally, she provoked equivocation. While Rand’s re-definition of ‘selfish’ was not a logical error, it was a practical error because re-definition tends to provoke error.

[DavidOdden]

I suspect you have redacted part of the definition you quoted. Can you link to it's source?

Tomorrow, I can probably locate a print copy of an authoritative standard dictionary, so I'll copy the citation out then and post it. Some modern online definitions (which are irrelevant to the question at hand, but will have to serve). The m-w.com definition #1 states "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others". On answers.com (copying the AHD) you get a similar definition, "Concerned chiefly or only with oneself", dictionary.com gives as #1 "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. As you can see, these are variants of the definition that I gave.

Moose has rejected all dictionaries, so for him, his task is harder, namely to first prove what this supposed "common" definition of "selfish" is. I feel pretty sure that he cannot provide any different definition of the word and prove (indeed, give any evidence at all) that that his is more accurate. The other problem is to provide the definition from Rand.

My belief is that he would not be able to do that, since his characterization was wrong. However, it was kind of you to provide him a key to the citation, so let's get the actual text out:

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness" is:

concern with one's own interests

. This concept does

not

include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one's own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man's actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

Your claim that "In all of Rand's works, the concerns of man are to be rational" is a misunderstanding of man's fundamental choice ("to exist"), but if you were to say something like "Man's concern is to exist, qua man, which means existining by reason (thus rationally)", I would accept that. Now:

it is proper to understand "concern with one's own interests" to mean "rational concern with one's own interests."

this means that Rand's does not in fact redefine "selfish". A rational man will be concerned with his "rational self-interest", and an irrational man will be concerned with his "irrational self interest". This unjustified attempt to smuggle the word "rational" into the definition of "selfish" is the source of a huge amount of confusion about Objectivism. Objectivism does not say that a person stealing with the thought of acquiring personal wealth is being altruistic (non-selfish). He is being irrational. A man may be "concerned only with his own interests" and and the same time totally wrong about what his own (life-directed) interests are. The abbreviation is thus invalid.

The mention of "disregard for others" is also an optional bit of fluff, one which is improperly included in some dictionaries in violation of the lexicographic principle that definitions are primarily denotative. Rand does directly address the connotative issue in the quote, which I provided above. A moral evaluation, or implication of a moral evaluation, is not part of a word's definition.

You are wrong to claim that "with disregard for others" is part of the definition of the word as used by most speakers of English. If you have some evidence that shows otherwise (also remember when VOS was written, so as to avoid utter irrelevance to the question of Rand's usage), you may present that evidence.

[Marty McFly]

self -- ish

self = ego, individual, etc. ish = ?

explain how this follows to become theif, cheater, etc.? even in popular (non dictionary) definition???