#Dictionary
16 messages in this thread
Bruce sent this to me, he thinks we ainta comunikatin. <g>
I think it says it all pretty well. And I don't see anything that supports
your contention on the definition of altruism.
— Forwarded Message —
#: 154187 S12/Take 5/Want Ads [ASOFT]
18-Feb-95 22:23:47
Sb: #154035-Echos of Ayn Rand
Fm: Bruce McGlasson 73160,1312
To: [ Anigrafix, inc.] 72440,3046 (X)
John…… Bob……
"What we hayuv heyuh is failyuh t'communicate." — Strother Martin to Paul
Newman in "Cool Hand Luke"
From the WordPerfect 5.1 Thesaurus:
altruism: benevolence – compassion
– goodwill
– kindness
– beneficence charity – humanity
– love
– benefication
– service generosity magnanimity humanitarianism – Samaritan
– charitable
– humane munificence philanthropy – agape largess –
bestowal
– donation
– endowment
– gift liberality – indulgent
– permissive
– tolerant
– reasonable
– receptive
– understanding
– broad-minded
– impartial
– unbiased
– cosmopolitan
– progressive
– radical
– unconventional
– generous
– lavish
– openhanded
– abundant
– extravagant
– plentiful
altruism (ant): selfishness – egocentric
– egotistic – boastful
– conceited
– narcissistic
– proud
– vain
– self-centered
– self-indulgent
– avaricious – acquisitive
– covetous
– grasping
– rapacious – bestial
– fierce
– marauding
– pillaging
– predatory
– savage
– insatiable
– ravenous
– miserly
– parsimonious
– greedy
– stingy – niggardly
– penurious
– frugal
– lean
– meager
– paltry
– sparse
That about covers it, yes?
Now, consider The Galic Dialectic:
Thesis
Antithesis
Synthesis
.. discuss …
John:
From New Webster's Dictionary (Please note that this is the entire definition):
altruism: "Devotion to others or to humanity, as opposed to 'selfishness.'"
Now, I used the term 'selfless' as a term to replace 'as opposed to
'selfishness.' I'll now go out on a limb and promise you that even Bruce's
WordPerfect Thesaurus will show 'selfless' as an antonym to 'selfish'. I
believe I defined the term altruism as "selfless devotion to mankind." If Noah
Webster were alive he would not have a problem with my definition so I don't
understand your objection. My definition is ACCURATE, if you don't believe me
here's the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary of The English
Language:
altruism (Please note that this is the entire definition):: "Selfless concern
for the welfare of others."
I said that acting SELFLESSLY was a requirement of altruism and I am correct.
Spin the word any way you want but my definition is completely in line at least
with the only two dictionaries I could find in my house at the moment. No
thesaurus is going to help anybody out who tries to get past the word's true
meaning. Now, how does your dictionary define the term altruism? Is your
dictionary offering something less clear than mine? Maybe this is the heart of
the problem. Anyone else who is reading this can feel free to post their
dictionary's definition of altruism. (Sorry, no thesaurus entries <G>)
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
I think it says it all pretty well. And I don't see anything that supports
your contention on the definition of altruism.
__________________________________________________________________
I have tried to discuss the concepts without having to rely on misinterpreted
terms. This semantic argument has kept us from discussing the issues. My
impression is that I wanted to talk about acting selflessly and you wanted to
talk about being nice to other people. There is a world of difference between
these two concepts and altruism only describes the former not the latter.
Bob
O.K. Bob,
This is the last time I'm going to engage in this. I think your persitence in
this matter is bordering on obssessive. I expect that you'll respond, but I
won't attempt to explain it any better than I have.
>> My impression is that I wanted to talk about acting selflessly and you
wanted to talk about being nice to other people. <<
I don't know where you got that idea. Nice was never a concept in any of my
discussions with anybody.
>> Selfless concern for the welfare of others."
I have a similar definition, with the addition of
"unseflish regard for or ".
I'll use your definition to explain the concept in context, because from your
interperation you extrapolate an awful lot that just isn't there, which
obviously comes from your readings of Ann Rand.
By your interpretation, one would always be thinking of everyone else before
themselves. This conclusion comes from your stated position "I will live for
the sake of no man" which you have expounded on to that effect. I don't how you
arrive at this conclusion. Just because an egotist thinks only of themselves
does not imply that an altruist thinks only of everyone else. It doesn't say
"total selfless regard…" whereas by definition, egotist does state "that
individual self interest is the actual motive of all conscious action." So that
may be a part of where your confusion lies.
In the most literal sense, the Masons, the Kiwanis, the Lions Club or the
Rotary Club to name a few, promote a selfless concern for the welfare of
others and none of them believe they are subjugating their own well being in
the process. And neither do they devote their 'selfless efforts' to their own
detriment.
In a general sense, the definition could include the idea of opening a door for
someone because they have their hands full of groceries. Consider that in the
process of trying to open the door the bag breaks and their food ends up all
over the ground, with leaking containers etc. Having helped this person avoid
the possibility of this situation occuring is in fact a selfless concern for
the welfare of others. Its not just being nice. The definition of which is at
odds with how its used to begin with. But I suspect that an egotist can be
"nice" without it being a contradiction. One of the last definitions of nice is
that of being "virtuous". And quite frankly I don't think of altruism as being
virtuous. To me its more a question of being "human" as opposed to being an
animal.
On a middle level, one might drive a half block out of his or her way to let
someone know that their fuel cap was off and gas was pouring out, or that their
seatbelt is hanging out the door. Or helping someone who's found themselves
caught in an intersection with their car out of gas, by pushing the car off to
the side of the road.
On a principly higher plane, there's the soldier in the fox hole who saves his
buddies by giving his life or the man that dives into a frozen lake risky his
life to rescue someone, (which just happened yesterday btw).
This is more than being "nice", its looking out for the welfare of others and
it is selfless (though not by JC's definition as he implies that any action you
do because you want to, therefore it must have a benefit.) In the general
context of day to day life one can be selfless and not selfish, even though
many people are, as its too much bother or trouble for them to help someone out
even in the smallest way. Let alone do something on a higher order with
selfless concern for the welfare of others.
The ego-centric, will drive by and honk, will walk past a person struggling
with their car door, and will watch to see if someone comes to rescue the
drowning person. No scenario given by Ann Rand contradicts any of these
scenarios, because all of her characters have an expolitive interest with a
deliberate result in mind.
Altruism doens't imply that one doesn't have a choice. If I help someone out
and they turn around and try to take advantage of me as a result, I don't have
to take it. I can have a selfless approach to life to the point that it becomes
a deterement to my own well being. I do not have to accept abuse for the
effort. Nowhere in the definition do I have to subjugate or sacrifice my well
being. I may end up causing myself harm as a result of my selfless concern for
the welfare of others, but that is not part of the definition of altruism.
Sometimes that is part of the risk of having an altruistic approach. "Selfless"
doesn't state or imply under what circumstances. It can be an "at the moment
selflessness" as at the moment of helping someone with thier car etc.
The problem with Ann Rand's philosophy is that there is no room for thinking of
anyone other than one's self. Its every person for his or her-self. No selfless
regard or concern for the welfare of others. Only self centered action and
deed. Also known as Ego-centrism. Which doesn't necessarily imply bad, just
lack of regard for anyone else. Of course the extreme of which is manipulative
and destructive.
I can show a selfless concern for the welfare of others and "live for the sake
of no man". Why this is not evident, I don't know. I don't think Thomas
Jefferson would have had any problem with it either. He selflessly looked out
for the welfare of others. He was ruled by reason but did not display
ego-centric behavior in his deeds. On the contrary, he looked out for the
welfare of his fellow man with a selfless concern and helped the formation of a
great nation which has shown actin based on selfless deeds, which was not by
any stretch of the imagination a self centered achievement. Quite the contrary
as there was such a diversity of opinion, that it almost didn't happen. All the
delegates had to work selflessly to insure its success.
There are plenty of things one can do "with a selfless concern for the welfare
of others" that don't impinge on one's own well being, let alone contradicting
the tennant "live for the sake of no man" which fall under the heading of
altruistic deeds in the strictest sense one can apply by your dictionary
definition. I can show concern for the welfare (or well being) of my fellow man
as I see fit. There is no defining amount, although the term devotion (but not
in your definition) has been applied, one can be devoted to the concept of the
betterment of mankind without subjugating oneself and without tolerating abuse.
It doesn't make sense to show selfless concern for So Bob, its the last quarter
and you've got ten seconds on the clock, you're at the 45 yard line, whata ya
gonna do? BTW did you lose money on San Diego? I told you it was a fluke. <G>
You have to remember I'm from the Bay Area originally, and those boys play for
keeps. <BG>
John
John:
Of course I'm going to respond as we have finally agreed on the definition of
altruism:
/_______________________From my message________________________\\
>> Selfless concern for the welfare of others." /_______________________From
your message________________________\\ I have a similar definition, with the
addition of
"unseflish regard for or ".
__________________________________________________________________ Ok, maybe we
don't agree.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
By your interpretation, one would always be thinking of everyone else before
themselves. __________________________________________________________________
YES!!!! Altruism requires this. This is why I would caution anyone from
professing to be an altruist as it would always place them subservient to
others. Call yourself a humanitarian and save yourself from the requirement of
selfless behavior. How about Humanitarian: tending to promote the welfare of
mankind – Webster's. Try generous or munificent or any other term without the
stipulation that you must elevate others to a level which puts your own needs
as secondary. The Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club, Lions Club are organizations with
humanitarian concerns, their members spend the day earning a living for
themselves FIRST and then set out to spread good will and generosity, don't
confuse this with altruism.
You've attempted to paint a dismal picture of anyone who considers their own
needs as primary and others' needs as secondary. Again, this type of criticism
would be more appropriate for Nietzsche (who would be your guy in the car who
would just drive by and honk), not for Rand (who would offer assistance to the
person struggling with the car door and would figure out a way to save the
drowning person without dying in the process) . From Rand's article "The
Question of Scholarship":
"To view this question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting
altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste – then take a fresh
look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is
offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when
the giver can afford it (ie., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his
part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver's virtues, NOT in
response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and NOT on the ground of
his need as such."
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
The problem with Ann Rand's philosophy is that there is no room for thinking
of anyone other than one's self. Its every person for his or her-self.
__________________________________________________________________ This is
profoundly false and is a total corruption of her philosophy. You are
describing hedonism, a value system completely opposed to Rand's objectivism.
In her Playboy interview she devotes a bit of time discussing her opposition to
hedonism. I'd quote the article but I'll restrain myself for once.
In reference to Jefferson, individual rights were paramount to his motivations
when founding this nation. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's
right to live for himself, to chose his own personal, private and individual
happiness and to work for its achievement provided he respects the same
individual rights in others. To claim he acted selflessly is absurd.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
So Bob, its the last quarter and you've got ten seconds on the clock, you're
at the 45 yard line, whata ya gonna do?
__________________________________________________________________ Well, since
I'm winning by 8 touchdowns I'll kneel down and let the clock run out. <G>
I've enjoyed this spirited discussion. However, I think Cserve is a difficult
medium for this kind of debate. Our topic is one which I have spent a great
deal of time and effort over the years gathering various viewpoints, it would
be extreme to say that I'm obsessed but accurate to say I believe the topic is
important.
Bob
>>>> By your interpertation, one would always be thinking of everyone else
before themselves. <<<<
>> YES!!!! Altruism requires this. <<
That's simply NOT TRUE.
The definition of Humanism is "devotion to the humanities: literary culture".
This in no way implies subservience to the humanities. And neither does
altruism by the definition "selfless devotion to the welfare of mankind."
Selfless just means not for one's self interest. The definitions you expressed
suit your purpose much as Ann Rand's suit her purpose in justifying
egocentrism. I told you I would use your definition to try to explain my point
of view. Instead of understanding what I was telling you by my definition, you
used it to claim victory by your definition. Debates like this are pointless,
as I knew this was.
>> it would be extreme to say that I'm obsessed but accurate to say I believe
the topic is important. <<
Maybe its important to you. I suppose it is important to be able to justify
egocentrism as a way of life, but its not important to me. I have no reason to
justify altruism as you define it and I have no reason to convince you that the
basis of your philosophy is faulty. All I felt obliged to do was point out the
fact. I really don't care if you are egocentric, although it does explain somt
things, and the fact that you admitted it was enough. I was curious to hear
Greg's interpretation, but you outlined Rand's views quite well. Beyond that,
there was no point.
You believe the evil interpretation of altruism justifies your belief. Many
Christians believe just the opposite; that egocentrism is an evil, and could
make a convincing argument to the contrary. I wouldn't want to have to argue
either position as I think they're non sequitors to the real issue, which is
how one lives one's life, anymore than I would want to argue for or against the
existence of god. We may as well argue how many fairies can dance on the tip of
a pin, just for the sport of it. I wasn't interested in the question for the
sport of it, though in the end I guess that was the net result.
So the fact that you are not convinced by my argument really doesn't mean much,
especially in light of the result.
Regardless of how you define it, Altruism doesn't justify egocentrism as a
motivation for human behavior. You need to find a zealot who feels as strongly
as you do about the opposite view. Even so, you would get little out of a
debate from that as well. You're convinced your right, and you keep
re-enforcing that belief. I think egocentrism is wrong as well as how you
define altruism. I don't think either of your definitions define me as a person
at all, though my definition of altruism comes closest. I'm interested in
understanding with a possibility of gleaning some truth. I don't think there's
any truth to egocentrism as a way of life. And its not my job to prove it. As
an associate the most I would do is point out that discrepancy. I have no
interest in taking it any further than that.
So if you want to give yourself an 8 point lead based on the manner in which
you've argued your point, that's fine, but on substance you get no points.
There is no substance to your argument. Its based on a false premise whether
you think so or not. No one lives by the definition of altruism as you profess
it to mean, which doesn't mean everyone is egocentric either. Regardless of how
you want to reason it.
I found this topic interesting up to the point that you admitted to being an
egocentric and your reasoning for it. Beyond that I could find little of
interest as I don't subscribe to that point of view, as it certainly holds no
answers for me.
I will say that I've gleaned some insight into what makes you and a few others
tick. But it is noteworthy only in passing.
John
John:
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
I suppose it is important to be able to justify egocentrism as a way of life
__________________________________________________________________
Yes, it becomes important when someone challenges this belief. It becomes very
important when someone tries to portray this belief as less than acceptable and
less than honorable.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
You believe the evil interpretation of altruism justifies your belief.
__________________________________________________________________
No, I believe that the self-destructive aspect of altruism is the primary
reason to abandon it as a plausible way of continued life.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
Regardless of how you define it, Altruism doesn't justify egocentrism as a
motivation for human behavior.
__________________________________________________________________
I didn't argue to justify egocentrism but against altruism. I don't have any
interest in proselytizing, just in defending a rational viewpoint from being
erroneously discredited.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
I don't think there's any truth to egocentrism as a way of life. And its not
my job to prove it.
__________________________________________________________________
Well, here's a dichotomy as I think everyone ought to prove this one way or
other to themselves.
Why do you argue against egoism, or egocentrism as if the egoist would
necessarily endorse hedonism? Why do you say that there isn't "any truth to
egocentrism as a way of life?" Why do you try to cast an unfavorable light on
the belief that one's own needs are of primary concern and other's are always
secondary? From Rand's "Textbook of Americanism":
"Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a
man who says:"I'll do as I please at everybody else's expense." An
individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man
– his own and those of others.
An individualist is a man who says:"I will not run anyone's life – nor let
anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a
slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone – nor sacrifice anyone to myself."
Bob
PS and FWIW, I think you misconstrued my response to your football inquiry.
You asked me what I would do with ten seconds left and I was on the 45 yard
line. By stating I would just kneel down and let the clock run out was my
attempt to show you that you never told me the score as it would be required
information for me to make a call, yes? So I invented one to favor me (how
surprising <g>). Hey, I don't think you even said which 45 yard line had I been
pondering a record breaking incredible field goal or a long bomb.
>> Yes, it becomes important when someone challenges this belief. <<
You put yourself in that position Bob. You've had several opportunities to drop
it without losing face; I haven't been trying to win, just counter your points,
with the hope that the futility of this debate would become evident. It would
stop if you'd quit pressing me to respond. I really do have better things to do
than challenge your beliefs, and would rather do them. Each time I try to back
off however, you turn up the heat, and then I have to counter. What makes sense
to you? Shall we just drop it?
John
I believe I did a creditable job of showing how self-destructive
altruism is by definition. It hasn't been my interest to drop the
topic, au contraire, I enjoy discussing this topic as I've mentioned.
I'm sorry you felt like I was turning up the heat, sorry if you felt
that the argument was futile, sorry if you felt like someone was
losing face, sorry to have kept pressing you on these issues. Now,
let's get back to work making money for ourselves. <BG>
Oh yeah, and I meant to comment on this one.
>> Thesaurus will show "selfless as an antonym to selfish" <<
Right so therefore we can deduce the argument is between,
1) a selfless devotion to mankind.
or
2) a selfish devotion to mankind.
Well we both know egotism is not a "selfish devotion to mankind", so your
agrument has a false premise.
John:
//_______________________From your message________________________\\
Right so therefore we can deduce the argument is between,
1) a selfless devotion to mankind.
or
2) a selfish devotion to mankind.
__________________________________________________________________
This is mere wordplay, like the all leopards have spots, all leopards are cats
therefore all cats have spots. By this method one could argue that a proper
deduction is that the opposite to a selfless devotion to mankind (altruism) is
the selfless devotion to extraterrestials or nonhumans. <G>
Bob
Bob,
You've done very well in presenting Rand's points. I know from experience that
it is very difficult to attempt to explain philosophical concepts to people who
get their philosophy from a Thesaurus.
I might add a quote:
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that
man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only
justification of his existendce, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral
duty, virtue, and value.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of
others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which in fact, altruism
makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is
self-sacrifice — which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as
a standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not
give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or
do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is
whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might
choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first
mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is
whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem
will answer "No." Altrusim says: "Yes."
Ayn Rand — "Faith & Force" in "Philosophy: Who Needs It"
Alec Jason
Alec:
I enjoyed your post, have you been lurking? John and I made a basic mistake at
the beginning of the discussion by not defining and agreeing on terms. That
way we would have reached our disagreement much quicker <G>.
Bob
Bob,
<< That way we would have reached our disagreement much quicker >>
How true! And all those wasted little bauds!
Yeah, I've kinda been lurking; biting my lips and trying to stay out of
trouble.
You're doing very well.
Alec Jason
Alec,
<< The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man
of self-esteem will answer "No."…>>
Shouldn't that read, " The issue is whether SINGLE man is to be regarded as a
sacrificial animal. Any MARRIED man with any self-esteem left will answer
"Maybe… What do YOU think, Dear?" 😮 ;-D
…B.
<< Any MARRIED man with self esteem left will answer: What to YOU
think, Dear? >>
Man, that's funny!
Bruce, I've long noted your wit and your writing talent. I really want
to encourage you to try and write professionally. I would think you
could produce a greatly entertaining novel. I'd love to read it.
And it might be good to have something to fall back on when this
whole 3DS/computer fad blows over.
Thanks. <<And it might be good to have something to fall back on
when this whole 3DS/computer fad blows over.>> Now THAT'S funny!