The legacy of Ayn Rand

[Karl]

Ah, so you made this scenario to prove your point...one plane is forced self interest and the other is forced death. LOL

 

 

 

No, it's not. Please see a good dictionary for the correct use of the word!

No, produce the definition yourself. Dictionaries aren't infallible and are often woolly.

 

If you cannot define it accurately then we see that it is a floating abstraction. It isn't possible. You can substitute acts of kindness, charity or compassion if you want, but selflessness is a logical impossibility.

 

You are over complicating what is quite simple. I realise this is getting us nowhere. I have posted the piece on selfishness as defined by objectivism in the Ayn Rand lexicon. Subject is now closed for me.

[Aetherous]

No, produce the definition yourself.

 

Lets make up definitions for words instead of using them as everyone else in the English language does! I already gave a link to Merriam Webster and gave its definition.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Aetherous

[ralis]

Lets make up definitions for words instead of using them as everyone else in the English language does! I already gave a link to Merriam Webster and gave its definition.

 

I agree. His use of Ayn Randisms is growing old.

[silent thunder]

on second thought... na

Edited August 19, 2016 by silent thunder

[rene]

We and all of life are part of a hyper-complex web of interdependencies. We are both separate and joined - and this joining exists on subtle, invisible psychic levels as well as more obvious ones. If it was truly possible for a human to rationally understand and work through the all the possible implications of a given action, then rational self interest would be the only sensible course. As it is, it's just one strand of many that determine the course of life. In other words there is vastly more to life than we are conscious of.  A purpose of meditation and mysticism is to explore and expand the horizons of human consciousness outside and beyond what is implied by rationalism. 

 

Yueya,

 

This thread is a good example of entrenched "either/or" thinking.

Your perspective, and post, is the exception.

Well met. (-:

 

warm greetings

[Karl]

Lets make up definitions for words instead of using them as everyone else in the English language does! I already gave a link to Merriam Webster and gave its definition.

What does 'unselfish' mean. Define it.

 

Isn't it exactly the same as selfless ?

 

If there is no self then there is no self to make a decision, to choose an action.

 

I already had this discussion on altruism, there is no such thing as a selfless self anymore than there is a cause less cause. It's mental masturbation, imprecise language and essentially poetry. These words are the result of religious mysticism. Use them if you want but they mean nothing if you cannot define them, or understand them. Dictionary definitions aren't exact, they can be a useful starting point, but it's the user that must correctly define the word.

[blackstar212]

It's not altruism, it's compassion, kindness, act of charity. It's so simple.

 

Look, back to the aircraft. Let's do a thought experiment. I shall give you the scenario then you do the rest.

 

Two aircraft.

 

On one the stewardess holds guns to everyone's heads and demands that that the passengers put on their masks first before attending to others. Each mask has a sensor that detects that this has taken place, otherwise a light goes on which tells the stewardess who to shoot.

 

Second aircraft, same deal, but the stewardess demands the passengers must not put on ANY mask at all until they have put on someone else's mask.

 

On which aircraft are there likely to be more survivors ? The impossibility of altruism becomes clear.

Altruism is very possible. Total survivors does not equal altruism is not possible. As an example if a child was sitting next to me I would immediately help the child get its mask on and if that results in my death then so be it.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

[Apech]

As human beings we have moral agency.  If you are a parent or have in your care a seriously ill or disabled person for instance, then there will be many occasions where you put the needs of the other over your own needs.  You always have the choice of course, you could abandon your new born child on a hill side and walk away should you so choose.  But then if most people thought this way there would be no human race.  In a wider sense if most people failed to understand what others were experiencing - what they were feeling - then we would live in the world of the psychopath.  We're not quite there yet.  Since the evidence is that most people who have the power are given pause before unleashing violence on others.  Some don't, either because they are psychopaths or because an ideology has blinded their humanity.  They have been convinced that other beings who actually share their capacity for pain and suffering are 'the other' and thus it is ok to kill and maim them.

 

Altruism or selfless acts make sense.  For instance with the example of the airplane oxygen masks - the reason a parent attaches their own mask first is to ensure that they do not pass out before being able to help their child or dependent.  Thus if they did it the other way round, should they pass out, no-one gets a mask and lives.  Being able to see beyond your self makes sense not through sentiment but just through understanding.  Understanding the options and choosing the right one.

[Chang]

As human beings we have moral agency.  If you are a parent or have in your care a seriously ill or disabled person for instance, then there will be many occasions where you put the needs of the other over your own needs.  You always have the choice of course, you could abandon your new born child on a hill side and walk away should you so choose.  But then if most people thought this way there would be no human race.  In a wider sense if most people failed to understand what others were experiencing - what they were feeling - then we would live in the world of the psychopath.  We're not quite there yet.  Since the evidence is that most people who have the power are given pause before unleashing violence on others.  Some don't, either because they are psychopaths or because an ideology has blinded their humanity.  They have been convinced that other beings who actually share their capacity for pain and suffering are 'the other' and thus it is ok to kill and maim them.

 

Altruism or selfless acts make sense.  For instance with the example of the airplane oxygen masks - the reason a parent attaches their own mask first is to ensure that they do not pass out before being able to help their child or dependent.  Thus if they did it the other way round, should they pass out, no-one gets a mask and lives.  Being able to see beyond your self makes sense not through sentiment but just through understanding.  Understanding the options and choosing the right one.

 

Once more you misconstrue the idea of rational self-interest. I do not know if this is deliberate on your part or that you are in some way incapable of rational thought.

 

The Objectivist would have no problem in acting to save their own child or dependent. They would however have a problem in relating to the "one world humanity hugging philosophy" which you espouse; in which case all of the oxygen masks would have been given away to third world dictatorships and everyone on the plane would die.

 

You also tacitly suggest that those following Ayn Rands Objectivist philosophy may have had their humanity blinded. This is far from the case though their humanity may be of a more rational nature than that of the humanity hugging Liberal or Socialist who, whilst saying all the right things, is in reality an extremely nasty bit of work.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Chang

[Karl]

 

@ Apech

 

Which is why it must be and can only be a rationally selfish action. A selfless actor cannot act at all except by the authority of others, in effect he has surrendered his mind and will to another man. He must refuse to think and simply obey an order. If he is ordered to die, then he must die. Altruism is a tool of an ideology of power, in which duty to a cause overrides any sense of self compassion.

 

Being 'selfish' is a term of admonishment, a way for someone else to help themselves to a value they did not earn. It is used as a bull whip to shame and cow people into giving away their property, minds and lives. It is the trick used by all dictators who push men to war with taunts of cowardice and spiteful selfishness in not standing up for their families and friends. It prompts the emotions, it causes women to berate their husbands, brothers to accuse one another of dishonour. It is a murderous sickness.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Karl

[Aetherous]

What does 'unselfish' mean. Define it.

 

Isn't it exactly the same as selfless ?

 

If there is no self then there is no self to make a decision, to choose an action.

 

You don't seem to understand how these words function in English... unselfish and selfless don't mean there is no self to make a decision. They are also different in meaning. Here are the two definitions, and I'll clarify how they differ:

 

Unselfish - having or showing more concern for other people than for yourself; not selfish (selfish is defined as having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people); generous

Selfless - having or showing great concern for other people and little to no concern for yourself; having no concern for self; unselfish

 

You're unselfish if you put the oxygen mask on the person sitting next to you first. You're realistically able to do that without passing out. You still consider yourself. You might even have your mask on and then be looking around for someone else to help...you then see a child who is missing their mask, so you take a deep breath of air and then go put theirs on quick and come back.

 

You'd be selfish if you just put your own on and close your eyes hoping you'll survive, or if you refused to take a deep breath and go help someone else, despite seeing them, because you'd be afraid you wouldn't get back to your own mask.

 

You're selfless if you go put the masks on many people before yourself...although selfless doesn't usually have the negative connotation that you would pass out in the process. It just implies that you were functioning in such a way that you weren't thinking of your own safety but primarily of others in the moment. This doesn't mean you have no self, and can't make decisions or do anything.

 

As we saw, altruism is the "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"...so altruism doesn't even really approach selflessness, if we're differentiating the term clearly from "unselfish". It's more about generosity than self sacrifice. There is still a sense of self preservation, it's just that you're placing others needs above your own, to a reasonable extent, so that they can be helped. Such as putting on a kid's mask before your own...there is no harm done to you in doing such a thing.

[Karl]

Altruism is very possible. Total survivors does not equal altruism is not possible. As an example if a child was sitting next to me I would immediately help the child get its mask on and if that results in my death then so be it.http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

You have the choice to do that if you wish, but note that this is your choice, you decided what you would do and an act like that requires there be a self to make that decision. Selflessness removes that choice, altruism does not care one way or another who lives or dies except in the cause of some ideology.

 

A free thinking individual can certainly take an action which might cause his own death if he does so freely, of his own accord. However this is not an altruistic act or it would mean nothing. It must mean something to you for you to take the decision and in that lies volitional free will and therefore rational selfishness.

[Karl]

You don't seem to understand how these words function in English... unselfish and selfless don't mean there is no self to make a decision. They are also different in meaning. Here are the two definitions, and I'll clarify how they differ:

Unselfish - having or showing more concern for other people than for yourself; not selfish (selfish is defined as having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people); generous

Selfless - having or showing great concern for other people and little to no concern for yourself; having no concern for self; unselfish

 

You're unselfish if you put the oxygen mask on the person sitting next to you first. You're realistically able to do that without passing out. You still consider yourself. You might even have your mask on and then be looking around for someone else to help...you then see a child who is missing their mask, so you take a deep breath of air and then go put theirs on quick and come back.

You'd be selfish if you just put your own on and close your eyes hoping you'll survive, or if you refused to take a deep breath and go help someone else, despite seeing them, because you'd be afraid you wouldn't get back to your own mask.

You're selfless if you go put the masks on many people before yourself...although selfless doesn't usually have the negative connotation that you would pass out in the process. It just implies that you were functioning in such a way that you weren't thinking of your own safety but primarily of others in the moment. This doesn't mean you have no self, and can't make decisions or do anything.

As we saw, altruism is the "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"...so altruism doesn't even really approach selflessness, if we're differentiating the term clearly from "unselfish". It's more about generosity than self sacrifice. There is still a sense of self preservation, it's just that you're placing others needs above your own, to a reasonable extent, so that they can be helped. Such as putting on a kid's mask before your own...there is no harm done to you in doing such a thing.

 

You would be acting selfishly whatever you did or did not do. An act of compassion, kindness, charity is an entirely selfish act, were it not, then it would be an act of frivolous nothingness devoid of mind. A branch of a tree that saves the falling climber is not acting altruistically, this would be your assertion. That the tree sacrificed it's leaves to save the climber.

[Apech]

Once more you misconstrue the idea of rational self-interest. I do not know if this is deliberate on your part or that you are in some way incapable of rational thought.

 

The Objectivist would have no problem in acting to save their own child or dependent. They would however have a problem in relating to the "one world humanity hugging philosophy" which you espouse; in which case all of the oxygen masks would have been given away to third world dictatorships and everyone on the plane would die.

 

You also tacitly suggest that those following Ayn Rands Objectivist philosophy may have had their humanity blinded. This is far from the case though their humanity may be of a more rational nature than that of the humanity hugging Liberal or Socialist who, whilst saying all the right things, is in reality an extremely nasty bit of work.

 

 

You have the habit of imputing on to me all sorts of things I do not actually think.  If what you exhibit is 'rational thought' then indeed I am incapable of it.

[Aetherous]

You would be acting selfishly whatever you did or did not do. An act of compassion, kindness, charity is an entirely selfish act, were it not, then it would be an act of frivolous nothingness devoid of mind. A branch of a tree that saves the falling climber is not acting altruistically, this would be your assertion. That the tree sacrificed it's leaves to save the climber.

 

There seems to be a brick wall where the rational mind used to be, prior to indoctrination. Altruism is literally defined as being an unselfish act...of course it exists, and is useful. People need help in the world at times...it's a great thing there are those who act to help them, sometimes for selfish reasons such as feeling good about themselves, or sometimes just to do what makes sense. This discussion has nothing to do with trees.

[Apech]

@ Apech

 

Which is why it must be and can only be a rationally selfish action. A selfless actor cannot act at all except by the authority of others, in effect he has surrendered his mind and will to another man. He must refuse to think and simply obey an order. If he is ordered to die, then he must die. Altruism is a tool of an ideology of power, in which duty to a cause overrides any sense of self compassion.

 

Being 'selfish' is a term of admonishment, a way for someone else to help themselves to a value they did not earn. It is used as a bull whip to shame and cow people into giving away their property, minds and lives. It is the trick used by all dictators who push men to war with taunts of cowardice and spiteful selfishness in not standing up for their families and friends. It prompts the emotions, it causes women to berate their husbands, brothers to accuse one another of dishonour. It is a murderous sickness.

 

 

Most awards for bravery in battle, the Victoria Cross for instance, are awarded to people who put themselves at risk to prevent harm to their fellow soldiers.  This is in recognition that even in the worst situations, that of war and killing, the human spirit is capable of rising above the narrow confines which you value so much.

[Chang]

Most awards for bravery in battle, the Victoria Cross for instance, are awarded to people who put themselves at risk to prevent harm to their fellow soldiers.  This is in recognition that even in the worst situations, that of war and killing, the human spirit is capable of rising above the narrow confines which you value so much.

 

This is a very poor attempt to prove your point.

 

The hero in your example is putting himself at risk to protect his comrades and is therefor acting from rational self interest.

 

Or are you suggesting that many Victoria Crosses have been awarded to those who assisted the enemy in some way? Now that would indeed be altruistic.

[Karl]

There seems to be a brick wall where the rational mind used to be, prior to indoctrination. Altruism is literally defined as being an unselfish act...of course it exists, and is useful. People need help in the world at times...it's a great thing there are those who act to help them, sometimes for selfish reasons such as feeling good about themselves, or sometimes just to do what makes sense. This discussion has nothing to do with trees.

Oh not at all, the brick wall, is the shakes structure you have built in you mind and is now threatened by a single word. What if what I'm saying is true, what does it mean for your previous actions and how you must act in future. If I was a fire and brimstone preacher I would give it to you straight, I would put you in mind of brimstone and putrifying flesh, of aeons in the pit of hell, but I offer you the chance to redeem yourself without any fear of the pit, only fear the loss of your own morality if you do not.

 

You aren't a robot so don't try and pretend you are, neither are you a cog in wheel that is deprived of the ability to think. You can and you must. What do you think of all those at the Nuremberg trials who stared into space, a vacant look of confusion on their faces as the sentence was handed down. Hadn't they only done what was best ? What they were told would make the world better ? That there was no need to think, they just carried out their duties as assigned and that they had no choice - but they did have a choice and they received judgement for their unfailing loyalty and unthinking altruism to the state.

 

There are no unselfish acts, so the responsibility is on you to think. Once you realise what I'm saying it will come as a wrecking ball to your hastily built pile of ill conceived, cobbled together philosophical incongruence. You are a thinking, feeling person, a volitional being able to apply reason and you are responsible for ALL your actions and none of everybody else's. Acts of compassion, charity and kindness are a result of selfish volition, the ability to give and to know you are giving, it is the opposite of altruism which is to deny that you know you are taking. One action is the good in humanity, the other commands an unthinking, evil, cold robot who is equally at ease in taking or murdering. Choosing to think is what makes you human, choosing to be rationally selfish is what makes you good. Choose wisely.

[blackstar212]

Oh not at all, the brick wall, is the shakes structure you have built in you mind and is now threatened by a single word. What if what I'm saying is true, what does it mean for your previous actions and how you must act in future. If I was a fire and brimstone preacher I would give it to you straight, I would put you in mind of brimstone and putrifying flesh, of aeons in the pit of hell, but I offer you the chance to redeem yourself without any fear of the pit, only fear the loss of your own morality if you do not.

 

You aren't a robot so don't try and pretend you are, neither are you a cog in wheel that is deprived of the ability to think. You can and you must. What do you think of all those at the Nuremberg trials who stared into space, a vacant look of confusion on their faces as the sentence was handed down. Hadn't they only done what was best ? What they were told would make the world better ? That there was no need to think, they just carried out their duties as assigned and that they had no choice - but they did have a choice and they received judgement for their unfailing loyalty and unthinking altruism to the state.

 

There are no unselfish acts, so the responsibility is on you to think. Once you realise what I'm saying it will come as a wrecking ball to your hastily built pile of ill conceived, cobbled together philosophical incongruence. You are a thinking, feeling person, a volitional being able to apply reason and you are responsible for ALL your actions and none of everybody else's. Acts of compassion, charity and kindness are a result of selfish volition, the ability to give and to know you are giving, it is the opposite of altruism which is to deny that you know you are taking. One action is the good in humanity, the other commands an unthinking, evil, cold robot who is equally at ease in taking or murdering. Choosing to think is what makes you human, choosing to be rationally selfish is what makes you good. Choose wisely.

Science has now replaced philosophy for the most part.

 

Science and altruism.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-s-your-real-motive-for-being-altruistic/

 

Far too many scientific articles that show altruism.

[ralis]

Science has now replaced philosophy for the most part.

 

Science and altruism.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-s-your-real-motive-for-being-altruistic/

 

Far too many scientific articles that show altruism.

 

E.O Wilson's work on altruistic biology is a good place to start in that species survive as a group and not as selfish individuals.

[blackstar212]

E.O Wilson's work on altruistic biology is a good place to start in that species survive as a group and not as selfish individuals.

Yes, good call on that.

 

We are a social animal so altruism is just a natural conclusion.

[ralis]

Yes, good call on that.

 

We are a social animal so altruism is just a natural conclusion.

 

Thanks for bringing that up!

[Karl]

Science has now replaced philosophy for the most part.Science and altruism.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-s-your-real-motive-for-being-altruistic/Far too many scientific articles that show altruism.

Scientism has replaced science and reason has been banished. I wonder if any of you will wake from your deep slumber so before it's too late ? Hard to predict. Hope so, particularly for the young.

[blackstar212]

Thanks for bringing that up!

Really the only question now with science is the connection between natural selection and altruism and how it works.

[silent thunder]

Altruism in action right now on a state wide scale... Southern Louisiana in the midst of the flood; not trained first responders, nor paid emergency personnel... but a spontaneous mass movement of regular people with flat bottom boats, going door to door, spending their own money on gas to save strangers, not checking to see if who lives in the houses are black, white, latino, or asian... just helping. 

 

Tens of thousands of people massing food and clean water and sleeping bags and donating their own personal property, at their own expense, not being reimbursed by the state, nor the function of the self... but selfless actions to benefit others in need.

 

I know it's nearly impossible to account for the merit of spirit, when all you have ever experienced are the seemingly all encompassing senses of your body and hence all you believe to be real is mud and skin and wood and bits of atoms bumping together randomly to create life.

 

But I tell you, there is no where you can point in the universe, nor in your imagination, that is bereft of spirit.

 

And if you find yourself in this most dire and poor of perceptual circumstances, you have my profound love, for you are in the midst of suffering that I find unimaginably unendurable.