I think what you are talking about is "enlightened self interest." While technically everything is done in self interest, there are also more enlightened individuals who realize their connection to everything else, and that they cannot do anything bad without it affecting their world and therefore affecting them. Giving to charity and keeping the environment nice are all essentially selfish but acts done by people who understand themselves and the world.
Great video. I think the big reason that a lot of people think egoists are heartless people when we say that people only act in their own (perceived) self-interest is that they don't understand that humanitarian (or altruism or whatever you wanna call it) is a (perceived) self-interested act, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, +1 for shots in the morning. Stupid but hilarious. Prefer vodka shots myself though.
No one thinks you are heartless. It is just stupid to say that a person is somehow unable to perform an action in opposition to their own (perceived) self-interest. You have absolutely no evidence to base that assumption on. You simply try to make the meaning of "(perceived) self-interest" vague enough to where you can use it as anecdotal evidence in your favor. You are practicing sophistrty.
You're only prerequisite for an action that fits under "(percieved) self-interest" is the fact that the action has been taken. Then you try to use that as evidence that all actions are taken out of "(perceived) self interest". You're argument is a recursive abstraction that has no relationship with reality whatsoever. A scientist only makes claims that can be tested and falsified. You are a nothing but a pseudo-intellectual Mystic.
Name me one action that a person can take that is not done for their own benefit, whether material or entirely mental. I'm entirely willing to admit that I'm wrong if you can point out a valid example.
That's an exercise in futility. No matter what I say, you can come up with some far fetched rationalization for how a person could theoretically perceive such an action as being in their own self interest. The fact is that any conceivable action could theoretically be in your "(perceived) self interest", or against it. You could perceive getting a therapeutic massage as being against your self interest. That doesn't prevent you from doing it, and there's no evidence to the contrary.
Well, let's think about this then.. A human being is just an animal, and as such evolved through the process of natural selection. It seems fairly obvious to me that an animal that deliberately does things against it's own interests would not fair as well as an animal that does things that are in it's own interests. It is just a theory of human action, but it is a theory that fits reality better than any other I've come across and does have predictive power.
Well it's on thing to say that humans rarely take action against their own interest, it is quite another to say that we are somehow physically incapable of doing so. I would still say what you have is more of a hypothesis than a theory though. Sorry for being so harsh in the first few comments. The keyboard is often the only outlet I have to vent my frustration through. I can see that you mean well, but I think you should choose your words with more precision.
No worries about the harshness, I'm rather used to it.
I don't think we're actually arguing over whether someone can act against their own best interests (as an outsider would observe them), we both know they can and do. The point of contention seems to me to be what people think is the best action for them to take. A heroin addict getting high is almost definitely not in his or her "objective" best interest, but they may choose that as it brings the least short term pain.
I know what you are saying. What I am saying is that even if you are faced with a choice that you have no desire or motivation to make, you still ultimately have the capability to make it. Now it may be a rare occurrence for someone to do something out of the blue like that, but until someone provides evidence that there is some sort of mechanism that would stop you from doing so, then I will lean towards the less confining possibility.
How does this sound for a formulation, then: Rational people tend to act in their own perceived best interests. I don't think this statement defies the egoist position in any way (even though I think egoism does explain the irrational cases at well) without sounding absolutist.
Except there are many cases where your perceived self interest is not rational. Like with the heroin addict that you mentioned. In his case it would be a more rational act for him to go against his perceived self interest. I would say that a rational person attempts to understand what their actual self interest is, and serve it the best they can without negatively impacting the equal self interest of others.
My fav line is "feeling good is good, so do it." I agree with you that humanitarianism can start right at home. That is a good message for us to be reminded of, especially in our ipod solipsist worlds. But it is interesting to see how a fundamentally good message, under the increasing influence of alcohol on neuronal connections, can slip into a perfunctory platitude. May i recommend orange juice, tea, or milk with your toast, rather than gin? I guess it was raining and impossible to do grass?
"Actual definition" - that was very funny concept you came up with! Where do these "actual" definitions come from? Language is emergent, created by the intersubjective consensus, to sound like confederalsocialist.
Sorry, AnarchoSolipsist, I guess the last thing i did here was to read your comment, and when i clicked to leave a comment, i hit your reply by mistake. Anyway, how does a Solipsist feel about intersubjective consensus? Does it really exist to you? And also, how do you really know you exist? Cogito ergo sum? Or is your name satirical? I am only illusory pathways, so no need to respond, especially if you walk a straight path. But i'm interested to learn about your philosophy, sounds intriguing.
To gaypaths, my name is not serious, I'm not actually a solipsist. I just wanted to put something silly after the "anarcho" that has nothing to do with politics. I'm not sure even about the "anarcho" part anymore.
when i said actual definition i was referring to actual words, actual definitions that are accepted widely, not misused words that are constantly propagated by idiots. Definitions are created by the intersubjective consensus..when did i say otherwise? Did i say i pulled them out of thin air?..and whats in the dictionary is the most widely accepted use. Its not a funny concept, you arbitrarily picked some of my words and created a half-ass stawman.
You said you don't care about "common meaning", and you care for the "actual" defintion. I understood it like you don't care how people usually use the word, and the word "actual" IMO implies that there's some other definition, independent of people's intersubjective agreement.
I think definition of altruism as concern for others is very common. Wikipedia and Wiktionary both define it that way. Why would anyone come up with a concept that doesn't apply to real behavior in the first place?
ohh so you did thought i pulled it out of my ass. And regarding "common meaning" i was sarcastic hence why i put("). I meant actual = official, nothing is more common than official ones. Wikipedia is a shitty source, it can be edited. Use official dictionaries like websters or collins. its true, altruism is about concern for others but it does mention your self-interest. My comment was a reply to a guy who said self-interest is not even mentioned in the definition of altruism which is wrong.
Humanitarianism is destroying nature and ourselves. Humanitarianism is been greedy and going only after profit and interests. Humanitarianism is to always take and not give. Humanitarianism is to be nothing but a consumer slave. Unfortunately, Humanitarianism has lately become a "dead concept".
true humanitarianism is taking care of yourself, and true selfishness means you realize the value of loving and treating fellow human as you would wish to be treated and feeling good knowing that you do the same for them.. but watch humanitarianism be the next "war on terror" watch us kill in the name of it. watch our president tote it as the reason for invasion in places we never thought to go to. your a cute drunk, alcohol is a shamanic medicine, tongue loosener. enjoy your week luke
I like the way you use the word "altruism" here, in the way of being compatible with "egoism" or self-interest. The word "selfless" is stupid and implies incompatibility with "selfishness", but when we use the words "egoism" and "altruism" this isn't necessarily the case. Altruism means basically "otherness", (alter = other, in latin), so it can be interpreted as concern for other people's wellbeing, not as negation of self-concern.
"Not everyone means x" does not mean that "no one means x," nor does it mean that "everyone means y."
The definition you are using seems to be "doing things without regard for one's self" this is indeed impossible (save some dispute one may have about unconscious actions).
A common meaning of altruism is "doing things to benefit others" while the fact that this serves to fulfill your own desires is neither disputed nor considered relevant.
when you speak i always think you have a long tongue and i wonder if you stick it out it would be really long!! if u feel comfortable do a video on this weird suggestion.
I think what you are talking about is "enlightened self interest." While technically everything is done in self interest, there are also more enlightened individuals who realize their connection to everything else, and that they cannot do anything bad without it affecting their world and therefore affecting them. Giving to charity and keeping the environment nice are all essentially selfish but acts done by people who understand themselves and the world.
spilledinsanity 3 months ago
your a weak social path ...
xjr1990x 1 year ago
Even a smile can be charity... (^_^)
whitelion1 2 years ago
Great video. I think the big reason that a lot of people think egoists are heartless people when we say that people only act in their own (perceived) self-interest is that they don't understand that humanitarian (or altruism or whatever you wanna call it) is a (perceived) self-interested act, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, +1 for shots in the morning. Stupid but hilarious. Prefer vodka shots myself though.
AlaskanAnarchist 2 years ago
No one thinks you are heartless. It is just stupid to say that a person is somehow unable to perform an action in opposition to their own (perceived) self-interest. You have absolutely no evidence to base that assumption on. You simply try to make the meaning of "(perceived) self-interest" vague enough to where you can use it as anecdotal evidence in your favor. You are practicing sophistrty.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
You're only prerequisite for an action that fits under "(percieved) self-interest" is the fact that the action has been taken. Then you try to use that as evidence that all actions are taken out of "(perceived) self interest". You're argument is a recursive abstraction that has no relationship with reality whatsoever. A scientist only makes claims that can be tested and falsified. You are a nothing but a pseudo-intellectual Mystic.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
Let's skip through all the bullshit, shall we?
Name me one action that a person can take that is not done for their own benefit, whether material or entirely mental. I'm entirely willing to admit that I'm wrong if you can point out a valid example.
AlaskanAnarchist 2 years ago
That's an exercise in futility. No matter what I say, you can come up with some far fetched rationalization for how a person could theoretically perceive such an action as being in their own self interest. The fact is that any conceivable action could theoretically be in your "(perceived) self interest", or against it. You could perceive getting a therapeutic massage as being against your self interest. That doesn't prevent you from doing it, and there's no evidence to the contrary.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
Well, let's think about this then.. A human being is just an animal, and as such evolved through the process of natural selection. It seems fairly obvious to me that an animal that deliberately does things against it's own interests would not fair as well as an animal that does things that are in it's own interests. It is just a theory of human action, but it is a theory that fits reality better than any other I've come across and does have predictive power.
AlaskanAnarchist 2 years ago
Well it's on thing to say that humans rarely take action against their own interest, it is quite another to say that we are somehow physically incapable of doing so. I would still say what you have is more of a hypothesis than a theory though. Sorry for being so harsh in the first few comments. The keyboard is often the only outlet I have to vent my frustration through. I can see that you mean well, but I think you should choose your words with more precision.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
No worries about the harshness, I'm rather used to it.
I don't think we're actually arguing over whether someone can act against their own best interests (as an outsider would observe them), we both know they can and do. The point of contention seems to me to be what people think is the best action for them to take. A heroin addict getting high is almost definitely not in his or her "objective" best interest, but they may choose that as it brings the least short term pain.
AlaskanAnarchist 2 years ago
I know what you are saying. What I am saying is that even if you are faced with a choice that you have no desire or motivation to make, you still ultimately have the capability to make it. Now it may be a rare occurrence for someone to do something out of the blue like that, but until someone provides evidence that there is some sort of mechanism that would stop you from doing so, then I will lean towards the less confining possibility.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
How does this sound for a formulation, then: Rational people tend to act in their own perceived best interests. I don't think this statement defies the egoist position in any way (even though I think egoism does explain the irrational cases at well) without sounding absolutist.
AlaskanAnarchist 2 years ago
Except there are many cases where your perceived self interest is not rational. Like with the heroin addict that you mentioned. In his case it would be a more rational act for him to go against his perceived self interest. I would say that a rational person attempts to understand what their actual self interest is, and serve it the best they can without negatively impacting the equal self interest of others.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
I think I can say that I completely agree with that statement. :-]
AlaskanAnarchist 2 years ago
My fav line is "feeling good is good, so do it." I agree with you that humanitarianism can start right at home. That is a good message for us to be reminded of, especially in our ipod solipsist worlds. But it is interesting to see how a fundamentally good message, under the increasing influence of alcohol on neuronal connections, can slip into a perfunctory platitude. May i recommend orange juice, tea, or milk with your toast, rather than gin? I guess it was raining and impossible to do grass?
gaypaths 2 years ago
cut grass, i meant to say
gaypaths 2 years ago
thats what you said, are you debating yourself?
"this serves to fulfill your own desires is neither disputed nor considered relevant."
Altruism - the principle or practice of UNSELFISH concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.
I dont care about the "common meaning" illiterate kiddies throw around, i care for the actual definition.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
"Actual definition" - that was very funny concept you came up with! Where do these "actual" definitions come from? Language is emergent, created by the intersubjective consensus, to sound like confederalsocialist.
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
Comment removed
gaypaths 2 years ago
Sorry, AnarchoSolipsist, I guess the last thing i did here was to read your comment, and when i clicked to leave a comment, i hit your reply by mistake. Anyway, how does a Solipsist feel about intersubjective consensus? Does it really exist to you? And also, how do you really know you exist? Cogito ergo sum? Or is your name satirical? I am only illusory pathways, so no need to respond, especially if you walk a straight path. But i'm interested to learn about your philosophy, sounds intriguing.
gaypaths 2 years ago
To gaypaths, my name is not serious, I'm not actually a solipsist. I just wanted to put something silly after the "anarcho" that has nothing to do with politics. I'm not sure even about the "anarcho" part anymore.
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
when i said actual definition i was referring to actual words, actual definitions that are accepted widely, not misused words that are constantly propagated by idiots. Definitions are created by the intersubjective consensus..when did i say otherwise? Did i say i pulled them out of thin air?..and whats in the dictionary is the most widely accepted use. Its not a funny concept, you arbitrarily picked some of my words and created a half-ass stawman.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
You said you don't care about "common meaning", and you care for the "actual" defintion. I understood it like you don't care how people usually use the word, and the word "actual" IMO implies that there's some other definition, independent of people's intersubjective agreement.
I think definition of altruism as concern for others is very common. Wikipedia and Wiktionary both define it that way. Why would anyone come up with a concept that doesn't apply to real behavior in the first place?
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
ohh so you did thought i pulled it out of my ass. And regarding "common meaning" i was sarcastic hence why i put("). I meant actual = official, nothing is more common than official ones. Wikipedia is a shitty source, it can be edited. Use official dictionaries like websters or collins. its true, altruism is about concern for others but it does mention your self-interest. My comment was a reply to a guy who said self-interest is not even mentioned in the definition of altruism which is wrong.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
You should look into secular humanism
FriendOregon 2 years ago
Humanitarianism is destroying nature and ourselves. Humanitarianism is been greedy and going only after profit and interests. Humanitarianism is to always take and not give. Humanitarianism is to be nothing but a consumer slave. Unfortunately, Humanitarianism has lately become a "dead concept".
apuleius84 2 years ago
Well theres taking a shot of gin in the morning stupid, and then theres going to school on mushrooms stupid.
TokenDrone 2 years ago
true humanitarianism is taking care of yourself, and true selfishness means you realize the value of loving and treating fellow human as you would wish to be treated and feeling good knowing that you do the same for them.. but watch humanitarianism be the next "war on terror" watch us kill in the name of it. watch our president tote it as the reason for invasion in places we never thought to go to. your a cute drunk, alcohol is a shamanic medicine, tongue loosener. enjoy your week luke
ShespeaksUC 2 years ago
I like the way you use the word "altruism" here, in the way of being compatible with "egoism" or self-interest. The word "selfless" is stupid and implies incompatibility with "selfishness", but when we use the words "egoism" and "altruism" this isn't necessarily the case. Altruism means basically "otherness", (alter = other, in latin), so it can be interpreted as concern for other people's wellbeing, not as negation of self-concern.
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
One shot gets you drunk? You are a lucky person...
Weaselheadx 2 years ago
Lol
"Feeling good is good" ;)
I'll quote you with my friends =D
Oedipus58921 2 years ago
lol when i got drunk for the first time, someone told me to drink a little of the same thing i drunk the night before and i wouldn't have a hangover.
lies.
Sugareexthexgypsy 2 years ago
Hmmmmm, how can you make a philosophical video when you are drunk?
drew335533 2 years ago
I like vegetarianism better. Veges are easier to prepare and don't spoil quickly without a gigantic freezer.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
mmmmmmm.....cinnamon toast....delicious!
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
altruism doesnt exist.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
The definition you're using for altrism is not what everyone means when they use the word.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
It's certainly not the definition being used here.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
ohhh so tell me about "what everyone means".
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
Not "what everyone means," what many people mean.
"Not everyone means x" does not mean that "no one means x," nor does it mean that "everyone means y."
The definition you are using seems to be "doing things without regard for one's self" this is indeed impossible (save some dispute one may have about unconscious actions).
A common meaning of altruism is "doing things to benefit others" while the fact that this serves to fulfill your own desires is neither disputed nor considered relevant.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
that is correct.what people call altruism is just another kind of egoism.
iopih 2 years ago
siiiiiiigh...just yummy-ness...wait ---what was he talkin about....;-)
nikkio3000 2 years ago 3
when you speak i always think you have a long tongue and i wonder if you stick it out it would be really long!! if u feel comfortable do a video on this weird suggestion.
nickleboy21 2 years ago 2
Do you use stickam to debate? have u read or watched videos about 'positive psychology'?
Imbealkariel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
first
UsingAllTheUsernames 2 years ago