Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The History of Language:

Rate this topic


Marty McFly

Recommended Posts

In a rather transparent display of sophistry, you’ve thrown out many non sequiter. I won’t respond to them unless you infer from them.

Also, you did not cited the source of your original quoted definition. You present a dictionary definition: “concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.” This indicates that the conventional usage includes the notion of ‘disregard.’ Of course, this belies you claim that “[i am] wrong to claim that ‘with disregard for others’ is part of the definition of the word as used by most speakers of English.” Every dictionary I have consulted includes some form of ‘disregard’ in the main definition of the world. You quit obviously and verifiably wrong.

I simply cannot take your opinion on lexicography, unless you can produce evidence that you are an authority over and above the authors of the OED. Apparently, the leading authorities in lexicography take some form of disregard to be in the denotation of ‘selfish.’ You are far more likely to be wrong than they. What hubris!

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.

I’m afraid you can’t even keep the crucial issues straight. It is Moose and I who are argue that Rand intentionally introduced the notion of rationality into the definition of the word ‘selfish.’ She extols the ‘rationally selfish’ man, but uses the term ‘selfish.’ As you have just written, “a man may be concerned only with his own interests and the same time totally wrong about,” i.e. he can be selfish and irrational.

Surely you will not claim that Rand extolled the virtue of irrational selfishness! Then Rand must modify ‘selfish’ with ‘rational’ to exclude the irrational but selfish acts you yourself admit are within the extent of the word ‘selfish.’ You have directly contradicted your main claim.

It is precisely because Rand does not qualify ‘selfish’ that I object to her usage. It isn’t a logical error. As a technical matter, we are free to name concepts as we please, and it has no effect on the validity of our conclusions so long as we do not equivocate. But Rand’s redefinition provokes equivocation. You admit it: “This unjustified attempt to smuggle the word "rational" into the definition of "selfish" is the source of a huge amount of confusion about Objectivism.”

Moreover, since Rand did include ‘rational’ in the concept of ‘selfish,’ you have unwittingly condemned her usage, too. As I said, you are not keeping straight the crucial issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why is it so hard to believe that I think Rand chose the wrong word to refer to a concept that I agree with?
I think I've adequately addressed your misunderstandings in this post. However, if in fact this is now just your confession of belief, that you reject her choice of the word, I certainly wouldn't argue with your introspections about your feelings. I would simply argue that you are wrong in feeling that this is a justified feeling, if you feel it is justified.

It would be improper for her to use some other word (your alternative is what? You have only proposed a klutzy phrase, which means that there is no concept corresponding to the central ethical standard of Objectivism) because it would be a contradiction and repudiation of Objectivism. You'd hardly expect that from Rand, would you? Given that the word "selfish" does in fact refer exactly to the concept that Rand's moral philosophy is founded on, to deny that fact would be to deny Objectivism. Your "it turns people off" argument is ridiculous, because by that very standard, Rand should have promoted self-sacrifice, chick in every pot, and greatest common good (im)morality -- so as to avoid "turning people off". At least, if we accept your unproven assertion that most people wish to destroy themselves for the sake of others. Most people are in fact quite selfish, and secretly proud of it. It's only when you get in embarassing public situations where you find more than a handful of people saying things that sound like they are afraid of being selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see how it is. It is a repudiation of Objectivism to think that her ideas are better described by a different pattern of vocal sounds. Got it.

No one is convincing me of anything and, by the looks of it, I'm not convincing anyone else. I've said all I want to say on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is from dictionary . com okay? and yes they all add 'without regard for others' so what? here look at how I already explained 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.

here is an explanation exactly the way the dictionarys want it:

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.

'without regard for others' doesn't mean you wish ill for others! it just means that you are not worried about others when you persue your own interests.

of course you are selfish is you jump because you want to

or cry because you want to

or take a shower because you want to smell good.

the literal definition of "selfish" is not a man doing bad for others, "sadistic" is a better word for such a person. or maybe "evil" or bad etc.

and the burning building: when you saved those kids, you did it for yourself. no one would have blamed you if those kids would have died. you don't know who those kids are, so you didn't do it because you love them or care about them. you saved them because you would not be able to look at yourself otherwise. because yourself is who you are, who you answer to. you are the only one who knows your own motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

In common usage, the word ‘selfish’ is wholly pejorative. It is a term that is used to condemn others. It is very seldom used in a neutral, technical sense, and to my knowledge is never used as a term of praise.

Gathering evidence for this common usage would be a time-consuming business, but I have no doubt my claims would be vindicated. In the meantime, a list of synonyms might he helpful in providing the range of meanings commonly associated with the term ‘selfish’. Webster’s Thesaurus says thus: “illiberal, narrow, self-centred, self-seeking, mercenary, stingy, ungenerous, greedy, mean, miserly”.

Most of the attributes denoted by these words are regarded as undesirable and not worthy of emulation. That said, the meanings of words do change over time, and it may be possible to persuade others that selfish should undergo a 180 degree turn. I just don’t think it’s very likely.

Eddie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...