The Definition of Selfishness 2 of 2

[ferrisbueller9000]

Yeah!

[unfad1ng]

I dont agree , the definition of a word has to be whatever people ascribe to it.

How do you otherwsie know the definition of a word?

If people ascribe a meaning to a word then that word must have that meaning unless it already has another meaning ascribed by other people.

For example

the word

"hello" is definied as "an expression of greeting"

whilst

"Hola" is also definied as such.

If words had a meaning which wasnt ascribed by people then there wouldnt be difeerent languages.

[highwind8124]

If you look at the definition of "selfish" in the dictionary, it says ONLY interested or caring in oneself.

You and Rand are the ones trying to change the textbook dictionary defition of the word. The term you want to use is "self interest". And I suspect the reason you and Rand want to confuse the two is to justify a life of selfishness.

[highwind8124]

My conclusion to that comment was a senseless insult that I take back. I don't believe you or Rand even want to live a life with no concern for anyone else. It was thick headed of me to make.

[signethouse]

Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This statement does not put others below or above yourself. In other words, it indicates that you can serve others equally with yourself. Go for win-win in your philosophy and you've not only bettered yourself, but you've bettered others as well. Although, there is a benefit to purely selfish service, it does not have the same multiplying affect, nor a lasting positive affect on others, society, generations, etc.

[Angk0rwat]

You're so full of shit it's almost unbelievable. "Aren't changelessly absolute" = a failed attempt to dodge Platonism. If meanings are a product of an ideal logic, but independent of human practices, where does the ideal logic come from? Platonic heaven, that's where.

Words have to refer to reality to be meaningful and can't be the product of social conventions? Do me a favor and point to "6", "love", "democracy", "law", "abstraction", "truth", or "knowledge".

Fucking charlatan.

[pr0gm3r]

Selfishness is concerning one own self-interest. Does selfishness consider virtue? In my defense that selfishness can not be associated with virtue(Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness). Selfish is not good, bad, evil or virtue. Selfish is just selfish in itself. Therefor I can be selfish to fulfill my own self-interest as long as I do not take the liberty of other people. i can understand the meaning of selfish, but Where is the virtue of selfishness? Selfish: concern about one's self.

[darkcloudstrife7]

3 people???!!!

If im one then who is the other 2??

I'm only 17 and I understood this.

[nine9s]

I noticed that I've said both that "words are defined by what people mean by them," and that "you can't go around redefining words." What I mean is that words get their meaning by how people use them; it's fine that we Objectivists talk to each other about how selfishness is a virtue, because we all know what we're refering to.

[nine9s]

(cont.) But to claim that the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't know the one true definition of selfishness is to claim that words have intrinsic meanings. If they did, we'd all speak one language and no new words would ever be coined.

[nine9s]

(cont.) One last thing and I'll promise to stop dominating the conversation. I actually don't think this is that big of an issue, but it raises some good philosophical points--what a definition is, the nature of the word "selfish," what makes a definition valid... all interesting stuff. But ultimately this is a tempest in a teapot. What matters are the ideas, not the particular vocabulary we use to convey them.

[SBRslacker00]

I agree 100%. I've read the back & forth in these videos, plus I've had this discussion myself with Objectivists before. It's a plain and simple shame how "selfishness" got muddled for everyone except the "true believers". It was a deal breaker for me as well, because it feels like this word is the gateway to entering the dark world of loneliness.

Rational Self Interest (RSI) makes sense to me. I can interact with others w/ RSI. I don't have to disregard people or look down at them w/ RSI.

[cropperb]

"You're right that you can't just decide that words have new meanings. But that's exactly what Rand did with "selfishness."

Rand's definition of selfishness is an objective definition, with referents in reality, while the definition popularly ascribed to selfish does NOT have referents in reality. _They_ just up and decided what selfish meant; Rand justified her definition by observable facts.

[nine9s]

Clearly we're talking past eachother. What is it about her concept that necessitated that she use the word selfish rather than, say, rational self-interest, which allows less room for misinterpretation?

I already showed in the previous video's comments that the popular definition of selfishness *does* have referents in reality.

[kylben]

It may have referents in reality, but it does not integrate them non-contradictorily. Yet there is a prior meaning that is non-contradictory. It's a lie to allow the contradictory use to stand unchallenged.

[nine9s]

There's also a gap here between the valid concept and the decision of how best to label that concept verbally. When doing this, you have to consider the existing definitions of the words you use. When a word's existing definition is a muddled package deal... don't use it! It becomes an obstacle to understanding where you need a vehicle for understanding.

[cropperb]

Don't you think that using their terminology is lending legitimacy to their position? (Their invalid position, obviously.) Shouldn't we use objective terminology instead of giving up on concepts that have been lumped irrationaly into packages?

[nine9s]

Never, ever give up on concepts! Keep the concepts, separate them from their packages, and throw away the verbal debris that packed them together. And yes, using their terminology gives them credibility--that's exactly why we should dump their contaminated word and not try to revive it.

[nine9s]

We agree that selfishness, popularly defined, is a package-deal. People lump together self-interest and the sacrifice of others. The word's meaning is vague and muddled. So why use it? You're right that you can't just decide that words have new meanings. But that's exactly what Rand did with "selfishness." You can't just say, "Well, I want selfishness to refer to my concept of rational self-interest" and presto, there it is.

[Elhan2005]

Since when are philosophers above re-defining words to suit their purposes?

[nine9s]

Rand went a step beyond setting up an impromptu vocabulary for the purposes of her philosophy. As far as I can tell, she claims to have *discovered* the one true definition of selfishness, as though selfishness had an intrinsic definition, apart from what people mean by it.