How I love to annoy the arrogant minds. And congratulations! You will be the first ego philosopher who would keep his abstract thought to himself. But please, write it down so you can make us all laugh.
You miss entire point. You as all people who use language have learn it from other people - society. Philosophy doesn't require language? Abstract thought without language? I see why you didn't name one egoist philosopher. Your ego is blocking the path to rationality.
Yes, species. Pointing out to secondary issues like writing errors shows your lack of argument. And to address your insults - you are just projecting your ignorance. Google: Dunning–Kruger effect
I'll repeat: Nobody invents his own language. No thinking and no philosophy without usage of language. You can't deny history of thought, also.
Psychological egoism can be simply put in question by invoking "survival of the spices" which can be in opposition to "survival of the individual". Self sacrifice is "logical" from biological perspective. American Ego psychologists ignore the unconsciousness which is crucial to human development. Psychoanalysis is much more than ego.
You didn't get ":p" and ";)"? It means: "Don't take it seriously".
Equating action with selfishness is missing the point of how "writing" and "talking" are fundamentally social.
Nobody makes up his own language, we learn it from other people. All languages are social, therefore all philosophy is social. And, of course, egoist philosophy is also social. Name one egoist philosopher and I'll deconstruct his egoism. Dichotomy between altruism and egoism is false!
the second argument made by religious people is merely the putting together of words that only make sense grammaticaly. it is a meaningless question that shouldn`t even be granted an answer. They don`t even believe what they say, otherwise they would not try to convince you of their argument.
....Psychological egoism claims that we are all ultimately selfish because the only motivation in our actions is to ultimately benefit ourselves, not just just because we are motivated by something in our own minds.
The only way to refute psychological egoism then, is to come up with a counter example where a subject performs an action that he does not believe will benefit him. Various examples might be presented; all can be shown to be incorrect.
@dhale750 That's precisely the problem. There is nothing that would even theoretically refute psychological egoism. Every conceivable story can be interpreted selfishly. Like religion, it's not falsifiable. It's not testable. Listing possible selfish motives does not prove them true.
No, for you objectivists, I plan to make collectivism and repress remarkable individuals so they can play role of "unsuccessful victims online that build their ego on hateful comments".
@organdva My comment wasn't hateful at all. It was merely an attempt to show you, by means of a challenging question, the inherent contradiction in your view. As far as I can tell the only hateful person here is you. You're the one that's just made unfavorable assertions about my character and motivations. Two can play at that game. Maybe I should say, on the same arbitrary basis as you used to condemn me, that you are pathologically defensive or paranoid...
... Or, maybe I should point out that another implication of your stated motivations is that other people are incompetent to enjoy life without your beneficent service.
Any act you do to help someone will make you feel good inside, unless your act puts someone else in harms way. then your conscience isn't clear cause your thinking of what if. But the definition of selfishness is concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others. and if your helping someone else to get a good feeling, it still isn't selfish cause it benefited someone else aswell.
As of late I have been getting tired of debating the semantics of "selfishness". If you want to define selfishness as necessarily entailing that you don't care about others, that is fine. But you are not addressing the issue of whether we should benefit others independently of whether we want to. Many self-described egoists don't object to helping others independent of "duty". But if you wish to not call them "selfish" that's fine, however you have not addressed the substance of their views.
Really small point if anybody can help me out... is there a difference between "egoism" and "egotism?" The sound of egoism is among the most discordant cacophonies that I've ever heard and I would like to never have to say that word in my lifetime, can I just say "egotism" in lieu of "egoism" in all cases?
"Egoism" has a very rich history to it. It would do violence to the language to conflate "egoism" with "egotism". Egoism just has to do with living for the values that you choose only for yourself. Egotism has to do with being arrogant. Now egotism can be a form of egoism since one can choose to have arrogant values, but it is too narrow to be synonymous with it since egoism doesn't have to imply that your values are better than others, just that they are suitable to you.
To say a motivated desire is selfish inflates selfishness to that point that all action is selfish and thus renders the term meaningless. It is therefore more useful to define selfishness in terms of either (A) the intention of the action or (B) the actual effect of the action (which is necessarily evaluated from some subjective perspective, base on particular assumptions about what are values and a particular understanding of the outcome of the action).
I don't know much about psychological egoism, but I would say that all human action is inherently selfish. Altruism is a cloak for social gratification and personal fulfillment. Even those who are self-destructive, purposefully inflicting physical/emotional pain are acting for their own betterment. There is a perverse pleasure in the depths of despair, many would call you mad, but when you hit that ultimate low things are almost beautiful in their hopelessness.
Psychological egoism is only partially true, because there have been established that trans-egoic states of consciousness do occur, either induced by being very close to death, in female orgasm (based on the brainwaves) and in meditative/contemplative practice in orgnazied or unorganized spirituality. All based on brainwaves and first-person/subjective descriptions. Spirtuality is not completely synonnymous with religion. God is not my thoughts god is not god.
This just seems like a debate over the word selfish. Brainpolice uses it to mean "stemming from the self," which of course all decisions do. And you are using it to mean "pursuit of one's self-interest."
There IS a distinction between what is geuinely in one's self-interest and the goals one pursues. People often engage in behavior that is detrimental to their self-interest, and sometimes even admit the fact.
What is the self? Any definitions? Objectively, a causal agent, I suppose. However, there are many subjective descriptions of the self. Some say that there is a true self and an ego and a transcendental, nondual, pure consciousness that is completely inclusive.
maybe two dimensions of self: a self which is based on distinction, and a self which is free from distinction.
the first, easy to talk about. any identification of inner or outer fenomena. dependently arising from the colliding of mental and physical aspects of reality. a basis for gathering of knowledge.
The second kind is a source for wisdom to arise.. perhaps nondual and able to carry all which can be seen as dual. all inclusive and unboud. everchanging. a stillness which cannot be found?
Good thought provoking video, even though I disagree with your point about atheism being impossible. While it's true that some atheists may hold philosophical beliefs about the world, they don't necessarily believe in deities, hence atheism being without a belief in a god.
Actually I don't agree with that argument about atheism, I using that argument to illustrate why I thought the argument for psychological egoism is flawed.
The term "psychological egoism" is not unnecessary if your purpose is to obliterate the connection between rationality and continued existence inside men's minds. It isn't unnecessary if you goal is to destroy language and definitions so as to unleash a terrifying reign of subjective whim (dressed up in it's sexy, political garb known as anarchism).
Alright, I'll stop. As soon as you stop claiming that ununderstood, irrational desires emminate from the part of the psyche which retains one's conciously held, fully understood ideas.
Otherwise, that is your goal, whether you know it or not.
There's much confusion about rationality and selfishness. They are related in the following sense: Rationality--the application of reason--is the MOST selfish (i.e., most virtuous) type of action man can take. To be selfish, is to act on reason--i.e., to be selfish is to be Just, Honest, Productive, Independent, Proud, to have Integrity, etc. Acting on the Objectivist virtues is, in fact, to act selfishly. (I am simplying it here, but in essence, selfishness means applying reason to your life.)
I disagree with almost of Rand's ideas. Her concept of objectivism AND on her theories of the possibility of 'true' altruism, as well as "psychological egoists." The problem comes because of a basic misunderstanding of what an analogy really IS! New theorist [notably David Sloan Wilson] are doing cutting edge work on the what and why of altruism. This research has a sophisticated environmental and evolutionary focus.
I don't consider myself an Objectivist. I wanted to give credit where I thought it was due though, and also explain why I reject psychological egoism. I'm not sure what you mean by her theories of "psychological egoists"
On the subjects of egoism and goal-directed action, hav U read Harry Binswanger's book *The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts*? I find this book interesting because it addresses biology-related issues that I don't find commonly addressed by Objectivist writings. I've asked myself, "If 'ought' does come from 'is,' & it's in the nature of organisms to reproduce, does it follow that a person has some ethical obligation to reproduce?" Binswanger discusses that issue.
I think you misunderstand the Objectivist solution to the is-ought problem.
The reason that life ought to be pursued is that it is the source of all values. One cannot pursue values without being alive, so life is a constitutive means of all values and all virtue. It is literally impossible to pursue any values without pursuing one's own life, at least to some degree.
The same claim cannot be made of other biological traits, such as reproduction.
For the sake of simplicity, I would call a desire a subjective interest which may or may not also be an objective value.
Example: Say I see an apple, and I am hungry. I have a desire to eat the apple.
Let's assume that the apple contains poison that I am not aware of. The apple is not objectively valuable to me, even though subjectively I see value in it because I don't know about the poison.
If you are unaware that the apple is poisonous, then it can't be said that your desire is to consume poison. Your desire is simply to eat an apple (presumably a non-poisonous one).
The poison then, is contrary to your desire, whether we call it a "desire" or an "interest".
I don't then, understand the difference. I don't see how the words aren't just synonyms.
I mean... I think what you're trying to say here is that the "interest" is to not eat a poison apple, whereas the "desire" IS to eat the poison apple.
However, it can't be said that you simultaneously "desired" the poison and didn't know about it.
Likewise, it can't be said that you were "interested" in avoiding something you are not aware of.
EpistemicDuty, I hope this isn't a time-wasting question: if U have an opinion on any of the works of the following philosophers, could U please state it?
Tibor Machan, Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Robert Nozick, Eric Mack, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Roderick T. Long, Tara Smith.
Once again, U hav impressed me w/ your sophistication. :-)
If "psychological egoism" is an unnecessary concept that explains nothing new, then why does the concept exist? I would think that the purpose in arguing that every1 is a congenital "psychological egoist" is that it would stress that it's pointless to judge a person's action primarily according to whether the person was more strongly motivated to help himself or people other than himself.
I think that we are able to live together in a civilization because our values overlap enough to a significant degree where a recipient of an act that was intended to be beneficial to that person would often view such an act as beneficial, so whether there is an objective concept of benefit doesn't negate the concept of altruism because there are many situations where all parties would agree that someone benefited and who that was.
Also I wasn't arguing in favor of the idea that rationality is a necessary prerequisite for selfishness in this video, I was arguing that pointing out that a motivated act can be irrational in and of itself doesn't refute the idea that rationality is a prerequisite for selfishness
Right. Was just trying to clarify that point. But I'm maintaining that an action can indeed be explicitly selfish and irrational at the same time - a common thief being a blatant example. Even granting that the act is purely selfishly motivated (not merely motivated), it doesn't follow that the means one pursues towards the end is rational or ethical. Obviously there is a distinction to be made between motivation and means. I'd even maintain that a motivation can be rational with irational means
I think that would basically be intersubjective and mutually selfish then. :) Sure, we can call such a thing "altruism" but if we want to be technical what you are refering to are mutually beneficial relationships. Rand herself defines altruism as entailing a sacrifice of one's values, but what you're describing doesn't really entail that. Altruism apparently must be forced to be altruism then, since noone can voluntarily sacrifice their own heirarchy of values.
Actually Rand defines altruism or selflessness as sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, and not as surrendering all ones values as such. This is compatible with acting towards what all parties can agree is the benefit of another person. One can voluntarily do this and still have their hierarchy of values it would just be based on a misconception of what they truly do value
B1. "Actually Rand defines altruism or selflessness as sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, and not as surrendering all ones values as such."
Suppose I consciously believe that I value writing my book more than I value getting good grades at school, & yet I find myself studying for school to such an extent that I end up not having any time for my book, & I feel guilty about this.
B2. Would U say that since I feel bad about this, I'm sacrificing my higher priority for my lower priority? Or would U say that my actions demonstrate that, contrary to what I consciously think my priorities are, my actions show that, deep down, getting good grades at school is something I implicitly prioritize over finding time to write my book?
I'm not asking what U think Rand's answer would be; I'm curious about your personal take on this issue. :-)
Sometimes we don't always completely know what would go or bad for us until after the fact since we aren't omniscient but I do believe we can make rational educated guesses
My thinking is that if, in this case, I'm right to believe that writing my book (which I say is my higher priority) truly is my higher priority, then my putting it on the back-burner for activities I believe that I value less, is a self-sacrifice according to Rand's definition. But if a person's actions always demonstrate what his true priorities are, then whatever I choose to do is my higher priority, which would make it true that people are congenitally "psychological egoists."
Noone can do that voluntarily. However they voluntarily act represents their current heirarchy of values. They can only be forced to sacrifice the higher value, otherwise they will always act on whatever is the highest value at the moment. I think this is perfectly consistant with praxeology. People's value scales change circumstantially and over time.
EpistemicDuty, when U say "altruism," do U mean the deliberate subordination of self to others, or do U mean the mere act of benefiting others?
I ask because science writer Matt Ridley and GMU economist Russell Roberts often say that a profit-motivated businessman is "altruistic" because he benefits people other than himself. I think Auguste Comte would be offended by that, because I've read writings of his where he says a profit-seeking businessman, by definition, cannot be "altruistic."
No,I wouldn't define altruism as merely benefiting, others. The main point I wanted to make was that altruism doesn't require an objective standard for "benefit" .
"The main point I wanted to make was that altruism doesn't require an objective standard for 'benefit'."
What do U mean by that? Do U mean that if I think that a charity recipient is greatly benefited by a donation from Philanthropist X, while some1 else argues that this charity recipient wasn't greatly benefited by this donation, that there isn't an objective way to settle who was right, because the concept of "benefit" is subjective?
Also, would U say that if it were true that altruism only meant "being charitable and generous," there wouldn't be a point for Comte to have invented the term "altruistic" in the first place, given that he could have just said that he wished people were more "charitable and generous"?
My definition was merely for the sake of argument, to avoid complication. All I had to do was oppose the idea that a motivated action has to be under all circumstances selfish. And I was arguing that this minimal definition of altruism doesn't require presupposing an objective standard of benefit.
OK, I see how the issues I raised aren't relevant to whether the argument U made in this video is correct. I was asking them out of curiosity, though, because these are questions I've been asking myself. Do U have any opinions on them?
Sorry if I sounded terse. I didn't want my answers to be overly long. there's a lot to address and it's a bit overwhelming. I'll see about PMing you to try and answers some of your questions further.
I would still maintain that what Rand calls altruism is nonetheless implicitly selfish in that it is one's own conception of what is good for others that it is based on. Wheras what she calls rational selfishness is more explicitly selfish because it is based on one's own concept of what is good for oneself (of course, in correspondance to reality, as she would view it). Both are selfish to me, only one is an outwardly directed selfishness (altruism) and the other is an inward selfishness.
In other words, semantics aside, I want to make it very clear that what most people would consider to be altruistic is quite likely in contradiction with the value judgements of the very people it is directed towards, and hence in this sense the so-called altruist is imposing their own value judgement all the same. Quite likely, they are superimposing their own value judgement about what is good for them onto others. It is in this sense that I maintain that it is still egoistic.
And likewise I fail to see how rationality is a necessary prerequisite for selfishness even in the more explicit or blatant sense, and hence there is also irrational selfishness alongside rational selfishness. It is perfectly selfish to go "I want X because X is good for me" and then pursue irrational or unethical means towards obtaining X. I see nothing unselfish about theft. Irrational and unethical? Sure. But certainly not necessarily altruistic or lacking in selfishness in any way.
What if a feel of "duty" or moral obligation (caused by cultural pressure, religion or ethical teachings) causes someone to do something that benefits other pepole and is ultimately against his own self-interest. I think that it is even possible to realize the irrationality of the action on some level and still commit the act. Human consciousness is a complex thing. We can have desires, thoughts, beliefs and motivations that contradict each other.
Of course there is some kind of desire that causes the action. Of course that person has a self/consciousness. But NOBODY calls non-conscious things like rocks "altruistic" so that's completely irrelevant point. You can of course say that selfless would mean literally "without a self." Altruism is etymologically a bit diferent, it's more like "otherness" than "selflessness." So it's actually pretty reasonable to interpret it as some kind of benevolence.
@MrCharlieSinclair
How I love to annoy the arrogant minds. And congratulations! You will be the first ego philosopher who would keep his abstract thought to himself. But please, write it down so you can make us all laugh.
organdva 8 months ago
@MrCharlieSinclair
You miss entire point. You as all people who use language have learn it from other people - society. Philosophy doesn't require language? Abstract thought without language? I see why you didn't name one egoist philosopher. Your ego is blocking the path to rationality.
Yes, species. Pointing out to secondary issues like writing errors shows your lack of argument. And to address your insults - you are just projecting your ignorance. Google: Dunning–Kruger effect
organdva 8 months ago
@MrCharlieSinclair
I'll repeat: Nobody invents his own language. No thinking and no philosophy without usage of language. You can't deny history of thought, also.
Psychological egoism can be simply put in question by invoking "survival of the spices" which can be in opposition to "survival of the individual". Self sacrifice is "logical" from biological perspective. American Ego psychologists ignore the unconsciousness which is crucial to human development. Psychoanalysis is much more than ego.
organdva 8 months ago
@MrCharlieSinclair
You didn't get ":p" and ";)"? It means: "Don't take it seriously".
Equating action with selfishness is missing the point of how "writing" and "talking" are fundamentally social.
Nobody makes up his own language, we learn it from other people. All languages are social, therefore all philosophy is social. And, of course, egoist philosophy is also social. Name one egoist philosopher and I'll deconstruct his egoism. Dichotomy between altruism and egoism is false!
organdva 8 months ago
the second argument made by religious people is merely the putting together of words that only make sense grammaticaly. it is a meaningless question that shouldn`t even be granted an answer. They don`t even believe what they say, otherwise they would not try to convince you of their argument.
busplunger 8 months ago
....Psychological egoism claims that we are all ultimately selfish because the only motivation in our actions is to ultimately benefit ourselves, not just just because we are motivated by something in our own minds.
The only way to refute psychological egoism then, is to come up with a counter example where a subject performs an action that he does not believe will benefit him. Various examples might be presented; all can be shown to be incorrect.
dhale750 2 years ago
@dhale750 That's precisely the problem. There is nothing that would even theoretically refute psychological egoism. Every conceivable story can be interpreted selfishly. Like religion, it's not falsifiable. It's not testable. Listing possible selfish motives does not prove them true.
socrates123456789101 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy is a DUMBASS, LOSER, LOLZ
HE DEPENDS ON OTHERS
LOL HEHE
LOSER
sexlessparents 2 years ago
Next anti-egoists will claim that when they eat food, it is not for selfish reasons.
universatile 2 years ago
I don't eat food for selfish reasons :p
It keeps me alive so I can make other people happy ;)
organdva 2 years ago
@organdva If it would make other people happy for you to kill yourself, would you do it?
StudentOfObjectivism 5 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
No, for you objectivists, I plan to make collectivism and repress remarkable individuals so they can play role of "unsuccessful victims online that build their ego on hateful comments".
organdva 5 months ago
@organdva My comment wasn't hateful at all. It was merely an attempt to show you, by means of a challenging question, the inherent contradiction in your view. As far as I can tell the only hateful person here is you. You're the one that's just made unfavorable assertions about my character and motivations. Two can play at that game. Maybe I should say, on the same arbitrary basis as you used to condemn me, that you are pathologically defensive or paranoid...
StudentOfObjectivism 5 months ago
... Or, maybe I should point out that another implication of your stated motivations is that other people are incompetent to enjoy life without your beneficent service.
StudentOfObjectivism 5 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Not other people, just objectivist. I've conspired against virtue and I'll destroy all individualism in my evil plot! muahahaha
organdva 5 months ago
@organdva whatever.
StudentOfObjectivism 5 months ago
Comment removed
universatile 2 years ago
Comment removed
universatile 2 years ago
ur a faggot. Correction, a selfish faggot.
ProfoundVirgin 2 years ago
Any act you do to help someone will make you feel good inside, unless your act puts someone else in harms way. then your conscience isn't clear cause your thinking of what if. But the definition of selfishness is concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others. and if your helping someone else to get a good feeling, it still isn't selfish cause it benefited someone else aswell.
SadisticlyHappy 2 years ago
As of late I have been getting tired of debating the semantics of "selfishness". If you want to define selfishness as necessarily entailing that you don't care about others, that is fine. But you are not addressing the issue of whether we should benefit others independently of whether we want to. Many self-described egoists don't object to helping others independent of "duty". But if you wish to not call them "selfish" that's fine, however you have not addressed the substance of their views.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
@SadisticlyHappy i would like to add that anyone who understands Darwinian evolution, understands that the 'golden rule` is not religious based.
busplunger 8 months ago
Really small point if anybody can help me out... is there a difference between "egoism" and "egotism?" The sound of egoism is among the most discordant cacophonies that I've ever heard and I would like to never have to say that word in my lifetime, can I just say "egotism" in lieu of "egoism" in all cases?
andrew49247 2 years ago
"Egoism" has a very rich history to it. It would do violence to the language to conflate "egoism" with "egotism". Egoism just has to do with living for the values that you choose only for yourself. Egotism has to do with being arrogant. Now egotism can be a form of egoism since one can choose to have arrogant values, but it is too narrow to be synonymous with it since egoism doesn't have to imply that your values are better than others, just that they are suitable to you.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
Oh I see... oh well. Thanks for answering that (especially so quickly!).
andrew49247 2 years ago
To say a motivated desire is selfish inflates selfishness to that point that all action is selfish and thus renders the term meaningless. It is therefore more useful to define selfishness in terms of either (A) the intention of the action or (B) the actual effect of the action (which is necessarily evaluated from some subjective perspective, base on particular assumptions about what are values and a particular understanding of the outcome of the action).
lancehalberd 2 years ago
I don't know much about psychological egoism, but I would say that all human action is inherently selfish. Altruism is a cloak for social gratification and personal fulfillment. Even those who are self-destructive, purposefully inflicting physical/emotional pain are acting for their own betterment. There is a perverse pleasure in the depths of despair, many would call you mad, but when you hit that ultimate low things are almost beautiful in their hopelessness.
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
Psychological egoism is only partially true, because there have been established that trans-egoic states of consciousness do occur, either induced by being very close to death, in female orgasm (based on the brainwaves) and in meditative/contemplative practice in orgnazied or unorganized spirituality. All based on brainwaves and first-person/subjective descriptions. Spirtuality is not completely synonnymous with religion. God is not my thoughts god is not god.
MaBu888 3 years ago
yay! i have not seen a new video from you in a while! :D
PinkFloydDroid88 3 years ago
This just seems like a debate over the word selfish. Brainpolice uses it to mean "stemming from the self," which of course all decisions do. And you are using it to mean "pursuit of one's self-interest."
There IS a distinction between what is geuinely in one's self-interest and the goals one pursues. People often engage in behavior that is detrimental to their self-interest, and sometimes even admit the fact.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
What is the self? Any definitions? Objectively, a causal agent, I suppose. However, there are many subjective descriptions of the self. Some say that there is a true self and an ego and a transcendental, nondual, pure consciousness that is completely inclusive.
MaBu888 3 years ago
maybe two dimensions of self: a self which is based on distinction, and a self which is free from distinction.
the first, easy to talk about. any identification of inner or outer fenomena. dependently arising from the colliding of mental and physical aspects of reality. a basis for gathering of knowledge.
The second kind is a source for wisdom to arise.. perhaps nondual and able to carry all which can be seen as dual. all inclusive and unboud. everchanging. a stillness which cannot be found?
ohmbumichum 2 years ago
actually never mind, i like just to leave the questionmark
ohmbumichum 2 years ago
Good thought provoking video, even though I disagree with your point about atheism being impossible. While it's true that some atheists may hold philosophical beliefs about the world, they don't necessarily believe in deities, hence atheism being without a belief in a god.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Actually I don't agree with that argument about atheism, I using that argument to illustrate why I thought the argument for psychological egoism is flawed.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
It's a very good point.
Myndir 3 years ago
The term "psychological egoism" is not unnecessary if your purpose is to obliterate the connection between rationality and continued existence inside men's minds. It isn't unnecessary if you goal is to destroy language and definitions so as to unleash a terrifying reign of subjective whim (dressed up in it's sexy, political garb known as anarchism).
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
That isn't my goal, and you always make these baseless claims. Stop it.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Alright, I'll stop. As soon as you stop claiming that ununderstood, irrational desires emminate from the part of the psyche which retains one's conciously held, fully understood ideas.
Otherwise, that is your goal, whether you know it or not.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
There's much confusion about rationality and selfishness. They are related in the following sense: Rationality--the application of reason--is the MOST selfish (i.e., most virtuous) type of action man can take. To be selfish, is to act on reason--i.e., to be selfish is to be Just, Honest, Productive, Independent, Proud, to have Integrity, etc. Acting on the Objectivist virtues is, in fact, to act selfishly. (I am simplying it here, but in essence, selfishness means applying reason to your life.)
qtronman 3 years ago
Very good video. :-)
qtronman 3 years ago
I disagree with almost of Rand's ideas. Her concept of objectivism AND on her theories of the possibility of 'true' altruism, as well as "psychological egoists." The problem comes because of a basic misunderstanding of what an analogy really IS! New theorist [notably David Sloan Wilson] are doing cutting edge work on the what and why of altruism. This research has a sophisticated environmental and evolutionary focus.
2bsirius 3 years ago
I don't consider myself an Objectivist. I wanted to give credit where I thought it was due though, and also explain why I reject psychological egoism. I'm not sure what you mean by her theories of "psychological egoists"
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
Good point...Should have said ethical egoism as delineated in "The Virtue of Selfishness"...Typing too fast AGAIN.
2bsirius 3 years ago
BTW great to have a thoughtful vid from you again, even if I disagree with some of the finer points.
2bsirius 3 years ago
On the subjects of egoism and goal-directed action, hav U read Harry Binswanger's book *The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts*? I find this book interesting because it addresses biology-related issues that I don't find commonly addressed by Objectivist writings. I've asked myself, "If 'ought' does come from 'is,' & it's in the nature of organisms to reproduce, does it follow that a person has some ethical obligation to reproduce?" Binswanger discusses that issue.
legendre007 3 years ago
I think you misunderstand the Objectivist solution to the is-ought problem.
The reason that life ought to be pursued is that it is the source of all values. One cannot pursue values without being alive, so life is a constitutive means of all values and all virtue. It is literally impossible to pursue any values without pursuing one's own life, at least to some degree.
The same claim cannot be made of other biological traits, such as reproduction.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
What if one doesn't find anything valuable in life? Is suicide "unethical" in that case? Or is it impossible to not find anything valuable in life?
AnarchoSolipsist 3 years ago
What do you consider to be the difference between an "interest" and a "desire"?
D4Shawn 3 years ago
For the sake of simplicity, I would call a desire a subjective interest which may or may not also be an objective value.
Example: Say I see an apple, and I am hungry. I have a desire to eat the apple.
Let's assume that the apple contains poison that I am not aware of. The apple is not objectively valuable to me, even though subjectively I see value in it because I don't know about the poison.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
If you are unaware that the apple is poisonous, then it can't be said that your desire is to consume poison. Your desire is simply to eat an apple (presumably a non-poisonous one).
The poison then, is contrary to your desire, whether we call it a "desire" or an "interest".
I don't then, understand the difference. I don't see how the words aren't just synonyms.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
I mean... I think what you're trying to say here is that the "interest" is to not eat a poison apple, whereas the "desire" IS to eat the poison apple.
However, it can't be said that you simultaneously "desired" the poison and didn't know about it.
Likewise, it can't be said that you were "interested" in avoiding something you are not aware of.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
Are you saying that an "interest" is that which objectively meets a given desire?
D4Shawn 3 years ago
EpistemicDuty, I hope this isn't a time-wasting question: if U have an opinion on any of the works of the following philosophers, could U please state it?
Tibor Machan, Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Robert Nozick, Eric Mack, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Roderick T. Long, Tara Smith.
legendre007 3 years ago
Once again, U hav impressed me w/ your sophistication. :-)
If "psychological egoism" is an unnecessary concept that explains nothing new, then why does the concept exist? I would think that the purpose in arguing that every1 is a congenital "psychological egoist" is that it would stress that it's pointless to judge a person's action primarily according to whether the person was more strongly motivated to help himself or people other than himself.
legendre007 3 years ago
The point is to destroy the typical selfish/unselfish dichotomy and render selfishness a neutral concept.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
I think that we are able to live together in a civilization because our values overlap enough to a significant degree where a recipient of an act that was intended to be beneficial to that person would often view such an act as beneficial, so whether there is an objective concept of benefit doesn't negate the concept of altruism because there are many situations where all parties would agree that someone benefited and who that was.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
Also I wasn't arguing in favor of the idea that rationality is a necessary prerequisite for selfishness in this video, I was arguing that pointing out that a motivated act can be irrational in and of itself doesn't refute the idea that rationality is a prerequisite for selfishness
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
Right. Was just trying to clarify that point. But I'm maintaining that an action can indeed be explicitly selfish and irrational at the same time - a common thief being a blatant example. Even granting that the act is purely selfishly motivated (not merely motivated), it doesn't follow that the means one pursues towards the end is rational or ethical. Obviously there is a distinction to be made between motivation and means. I'd even maintain that a motivation can be rational with irational means
brainpolice2 3 years ago
I think that would basically be intersubjective and mutually selfish then. :) Sure, we can call such a thing "altruism" but if we want to be technical what you are refering to are mutually beneficial relationships. Rand herself defines altruism as entailing a sacrifice of one's values, but what you're describing doesn't really entail that. Altruism apparently must be forced to be altruism then, since noone can voluntarily sacrifice their own heirarchy of values.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Actually Rand defines altruism or selflessness as sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, and not as surrendering all ones values as such. This is compatible with acting towards what all parties can agree is the benefit of another person. One can voluntarily do this and still have their hierarchy of values it would just be based on a misconception of what they truly do value
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
B1. "Actually Rand defines altruism or selflessness as sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, and not as surrendering all ones values as such."
Suppose I consciously believe that I value writing my book more than I value getting good grades at school, & yet I find myself studying for school to such an extent that I end up not having any time for my book, & I feel guilty about this.
legendre007 3 years ago
B2. Would U say that since I feel bad about this, I'm sacrificing my higher priority for my lower priority? Or would U say that my actions demonstrate that, contrary to what I consciously think my priorities are, my actions show that, deep down, getting good grades at school is something I implicitly prioritize over finding time to write my book?
I'm not asking what U think Rand's answer would be; I'm curious about your personal take on this issue. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago
Sometimes we don't always completely know what would go or bad for us until after the fact since we aren't omniscient but I do believe we can make rational educated guesses
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
typo"what would be good or bad for us..."
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
My thinking is that if, in this case, I'm right to believe that writing my book (which I say is my higher priority) truly is my higher priority, then my putting it on the back-burner for activities I believe that I value less, is a self-sacrifice according to Rand's definition. But if a person's actions always demonstrate what his true priorities are, then whatever I choose to do is my higher priority, which would make it true that people are congenitally "psychological egoists."
legendre007 3 years ago
Noone can do that voluntarily. However they voluntarily act represents their current heirarchy of values. They can only be forced to sacrifice the higher value, otherwise they will always act on whatever is the highest value at the moment. I think this is perfectly consistant with praxeology. People's value scales change circumstantially and over time.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
EpistemicDuty, when U say "altruism," do U mean the deliberate subordination of self to others, or do U mean the mere act of benefiting others?
I ask because science writer Matt Ridley and GMU economist Russell Roberts often say that a profit-motivated businessman is "altruistic" because he benefits people other than himself. I think Auguste Comte would be offended by that, because I've read writings of his where he says a profit-seeking businessman, by definition, cannot be "altruistic."
legendre007 3 years ago
No,I wouldn't define altruism as merely benefiting, others. The main point I wanted to make was that altruism doesn't require an objective standard for "benefit" .
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
"The main point I wanted to make was that altruism doesn't require an objective standard for 'benefit'."
What do U mean by that? Do U mean that if I think that a charity recipient is greatly benefited by a donation from Philanthropist X, while some1 else argues that this charity recipient wasn't greatly benefited by this donation, that there isn't an objective way to settle who was right, because the concept of "benefit" is subjective?
legendre007 3 years ago
I'm not arguing the concept of benefit is subjective. I'm arguing that even if it were I think we could still make sense of the concept of altruism
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
"I'm arguing that even if it were I think we could still make sense of the concept of altruism."
Do U mean Rand's definition of altruism, as opposed to the common perception of altruism meaning "being charitable and generous"?
legendre007 3 years ago
Also, would U say that if it were true that altruism only meant "being charitable and generous," there wouldn't be a point for Comte to have invented the term "altruistic" in the first place, given that he could have just said that he wished people were more "charitable and generous"?
legendre007 3 years ago
I guess that would depend on what standard of value he is presupposing to arguing that there is not enough charity and generosity
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
My definition was merely for the sake of argument, to avoid complication. All I had to do was oppose the idea that a motivated action has to be under all circumstances selfish. And I was arguing that this minimal definition of altruism doesn't require presupposing an objective standard of benefit.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
OK, I see how the issues I raised aren't relevant to whether the argument U made in this video is correct. I was asking them out of curiosity, though, because these are questions I've been asking myself. Do U have any opinions on them?
legendre007 3 years ago
Sorry if I sounded terse. I didn't want my answers to be overly long. there's a lot to address and it's a bit overwhelming. I'll see about PMing you to try and answers some of your questions further.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
Thank you very much. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago
I would still maintain that what Rand calls altruism is nonetheless implicitly selfish in that it is one's own conception of what is good for others that it is based on. Wheras what she calls rational selfishness is more explicitly selfish because it is based on one's own concept of what is good for oneself (of course, in correspondance to reality, as she would view it). Both are selfish to me, only one is an outwardly directed selfishness (altruism) and the other is an inward selfishness.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
In other words, semantics aside, I want to make it very clear that what most people would consider to be altruistic is quite likely in contradiction with the value judgements of the very people it is directed towards, and hence in this sense the so-called altruist is imposing their own value judgement all the same. Quite likely, they are superimposing their own value judgement about what is good for them onto others. It is in this sense that I maintain that it is still egoistic.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
And likewise I fail to see how rationality is a necessary prerequisite for selfishness even in the more explicit or blatant sense, and hence there is also irrational selfishness alongside rational selfishness. It is perfectly selfish to go "I want X because X is good for me" and then pursue irrational or unethical means towards obtaining X. I see nothing unselfish about theft. Irrational and unethical? Sure. But certainly not necessarily altruistic or lacking in selfishness in any way.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
What if a feel of "duty" or moral obligation (caused by cultural pressure, religion or ethical teachings) causes someone to do something that benefits other pepole and is ultimately against his own self-interest. I think that it is even possible to realize the irrationality of the action on some level and still commit the act. Human consciousness is a complex thing. We can have desires, thoughts, beliefs and motivations that contradict each other.
AnarchoSolipsist 3 years ago
Of course there is some kind of desire that causes the action. Of course that person has a self/consciousness. But NOBODY calls non-conscious things like rocks "altruistic" so that's completely irrelevant point. You can of course say that selfless would mean literally "without a self." Altruism is etymologically a bit diferent, it's more like "otherness" than "selflessness." So it's actually pretty reasonable to interpret it as some kind of benevolence.
AnarchoSolipsist 3 years ago