Don't Cede "Selfishness" by Stuart K. Hayashi - 1 of 3

[Sam26100]

Wonderful video.

[illuded]

Rand was correct on using 'selfishness' because there is no alternative. 'Selflessness' does not count because it is self-contradictory, and therefore does not exist in reality. You cannot make up another word because I think people would just identify it as selfishness anyways.

What you should do in arguing with Non-O's are two things:

1. show the self-contradiction of selflessness/altruism.

2. detach the negative emotional aspect conventionally associated with the definition of selfishness.

[pr0gm3r]

human are profiting themselves. One wants to gain advantage over the other. Harming? human can harm the self and others. Therefore everyone is harm in some form or another.

Pain and Suffering always occurs when human mind conduct this thinking.

Man is always contradictory and selective being. It is our will to power and to be the top so one can feel pleasure. btw even pleasure is in the content of our mind. Hence be careful what you think. Thinking is the problems!

[MrCropper]

"Hence be careful what you think. Thinking is the problems!"

I suppose you figured this out by thinking, right?

And I suspect you don't want me to think about your admonition - you want me to just accept it? What an idiotic bag of contradiction.

[UltiGamer101]

Entrepreneurs aren't selfish...

Entrepreneurs, they are simply their own boss.

but those who arent entrepreneurs are working for them, because who your working for is your boss...well if they dont have a boss, the are their own boss, making them entrepreneurs. if your boss answers to another boss, and that boss doesnt answer to one, then he is an entrepreneur. See? those who think entrepreneurs are selfish are actually working for them, whether it be through a chain of people or not.

[sailormnop007]

Also, this exchange occurred a while back:

nine9s: "that would make no sense at all to a non-Objectivist. Non-O's use the word to mean harming others in the pursuit of one's self-interest."

MrCropper: This is not relevant.

Oh but it is ultimately relevant. We talk amongst ourselves until we turn blue in the face with our secret language of Oism, but if we can't communicate with the rest of the world, what is it accomplishing? How are we moving towards a more Oist society if no one understands?

[theinquisitor]

The point is that if you explain the idea and call it something other than selfishness, they'll say "oh you're talking about selfishness, why didn't you just say so?"

Far from it being a secret language, there's no way to detach objectivism from the word selfish. It's used too much in the context of objectivist ideology for people to not come across it when looking into the idea, and they will see it's obscuration as a deception and an insult to their intelligence. I know I would.

[sailormnop007]

And the problem with that is that what we're talking about actually isn't selfishness. That word includes self-interest AND all of the negative connotations that my grandmother loaded with when she scolded my mother for not sharing with my aunt. That IS the actual meaning of the word today. I agree with everything in Objectivism that I've given serious thought to, but I really wish Ayn Rand hadn't tried to redefine selfishness. She used it for shock value, but now we may be stuck with the tag.

[theinquisitor]

Exactly my point. We are stuck with it. If you try to talk to someone about Objectivism or Ayn Rand, it's likely that they'll know the word selfish is used in this context, or they'll find out soon.

You just have to point out that words aren't magic containers of meaning, but merely sounds and symbols we use as labels so we don't have to re-describe a concept every time we mention it.

"Ayn Rand used a different definition of that word, and here it is..." should be all you need to say.

[sailormnop007]

Works for me.

[theinquisitor]

The reason the common meaning of the word selfish should be rejected is because it is incoherent. It is applied to people who are actually self-interested and those who simply act on their desires and stupidity and end up hurting themselves.

It's the same reason the word planet was redefined. It was being used to refer to Pluto, but not hundreds of other objects of a similar size and location, so to make the term coherent, Pluto had to not be one, or we had to count planets in the hundreds.

[marneedear]

Good analogy there with Newton and concepts of mass.

[legendre007]

When you go to DictionaryDOTCom, the 1st definition of "selfish" offered is "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others." It doesn't say "at the inexorable expense of others," though that's what normal people emotionally mean when they say "selfish."

[nine9s]

I *might* do a video response tomorrow.

[nine9s]

"The technical definition implies looking out for one's self-interest. The word's second meaning is in its emotional underpinning." That is a misunderstanding of what non-Objectivists mean by the word "selfishness". We O'ists would say that eating a meal is an example of selfishness, but that would make no sense at all to a non-Objectivist. Non-O's use the word to mean harming others in the pursuit of one's self-interest. Self-interest is a more accurate word to use for what Rand meant.

[MrCropper]

"that would make no sense at all to a non-Objectivist. Non-O's use the word to mean harming others in the pursuit of one's self-interest."

This is not relevant.

"Self-interest is a more accurate word to use for what Rand meant."

Only if you accept the package-deal that self-interest harms the acting self.

[nine9s]

How would you say a word originally gets its definition? Where does it come from?

[nine9s]

"...the package deal that self-interest harms the acting self." Huh? That package deal exists for "selfishness" far more so than with "self-interest."

[MrCropper]

""

So you DO see 'selfish' as a package deal!?

As for where it comes from/gets its original meaning, I've not considered the question. How is it relevant?

[nine9s]

Of course I see it as a package deal.  It *is* a package deal.

How a word gets its meaning is the central problem. This is a debate over what the word "selfish" really means, and to answer that, we need to find out how words get their definitions, and apply that to the word "selfishness."

Ah well, too late for a video response. Maybe next week... or perhaps by then you'll post a video renouncing your position and proclaiming my brilliance of persuasion...

[qtronman]

3 Cheers for Stuart/Legendre007. He is one of the few rational men on YouTube.

[legendre007]

Thanks, qtronman! :-)

[marneedear]

Totally. Stu is one of the most clear thinkers on You Tube and he's great fun.

[qtronman]

Hey marneedear: Did you go to Las Vegas with Cropper et al.?

[marneedear]

No. I didnt make it :(

[theinquisitor]

To adopt a new label for the concept would be doing what the creationists have done. Their concept wasn't received well and so they changed it's name to intelligent design and kept the concept identical. People realised this when they looked at the idea instead of the label, and the public perception of the credibility of creationism dropped.

If objectivists were to use a synonym to try to distract from the word selfish, it would be perceived as the same kind of trickery.

[sailormnop007]

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but comparing it to creationism is a little off. Creationism was factually refuted and the creationists are trying to sneak it back in by changing the name. 'Selfish' has been used by mothers for many decades - perhaps more than 100 years - to scold misbehaving children. The problem with 'selfish' is that in the '60s and '70s we were told that in order to avoid being selfish we must share everything with the 'less fortunate'.

[sailormnop007]

The popular definition of 'selfish' has been established for a long time. Ayn Rand used the word to call attention to the fact that the Left somehow got everyone to forget the happy medium of rational self-interest.

So, I think when you use the word 'selfish', you are intentionally putting yourself at a disadvantage by rousing objections in others. A useful tool for illustrating a point, but not so useful for daily use. The commonly accepted definition has not been wrong for 100 years.

[sailormnop007]

How the heck do you a reply to appear with the message to which it is a reply?!?

[theinquisitor]

I'm not comparing objectivism to creationism by any means, it's just an example of the effect of relabelling an idea. The point is that if you try to tell people objectivism is about self-interest and not selfishness, it's like when a creationist says intelligent design has nothing to do with god. It's trying to trick people with words.

People are going to figure out that self-interest means selfish, and that's going to make you look like a backpedaling spin doctor, like a creationist.

[sailormnop007]

Self-interest is the most accurate term in today's English (and the English of the last 100 years) for what we are talking about. ID is an attempt to hide behind a false facade, whereas self-interest is simply the best term to communicate the truth of Objectivism. This is not dishonest or cowardly. This is why I thought the analogy was inappropriate.

Most people today get that you have to 'look out for #1' but they don't have a name for it. Self-interest is the best word to get this across.

[nine9s]

Gaa, just ready to go to bed, and my two archnemeses gang up on me. :) I'll watch after I've had some sleep...