RNB

There are many reasons why not being a jerk to a cashier is rationally selfish:

- You don't have to waste time with pointless arguing.
- You don't look like a jerk.

Or the reason you stated yourself:

That is the reason you do it. You don't feel all fuzzy and warm inside, but you can identify yourself in the position of the cashier.

Also, some things such as clapping after a performance and saying thank you are just habitual actions. That could possibly be your case. They are actions that aren't really selfish, but they have been ingrained in you by your parents because they are rational in the end. You have just not made them part of your life in a the deepest sense.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Ero

First two reasons were on point, but its hard to argue empathy as a form of selfishness.
I mean you can go so far as to say its selfish because you're envisioning the scenario happening to you and don't want it t happen to you, but thats kinda stretching it.

At first i was dissapointed with this thread, but RnB can be pretty intelligent when he thinks about the things he's supporting before he posts. gg

I think the main distinction between socially accepted "selflessness" and percieved "selfishness" is whether or not the expected return is abstract or concrete.

not sure if someone's said that already, i was just scannin posts.


-edit- read some more.
From what you've said about Ayn Rand's theory on selfishness/selflessness i'd have to subtly disagree. What she says is logical, but its a logically pessimistic point of view. I think when looking at the issue of selflessness and selfishness in humanity, theres more than one "answer". Just like that glass is half full half empty bullshit. No act is purely selfless, yes. However that does not necessarily mean that all acts are intrinsically selfish.

Yeah i know its hard to agree with that point of view due to the natural absolution of both terms [therefore u'd logically conclude that if A is not true then B is true.] However, if you look at the definitions based on what we know of the range in human choice and emotion an act can still be intriniscally selfless. For example in bal's case, as you've shown in your own analysis, yeah Bal doesn't want to be labelled a jerk or deal with a pissed off clerk, yeah that side is selfish, and those are the rewards he gets from doing what he did.

However, that said, did bal decide to be nice to the clerk becaue he didnt want to be a jerk? Or did he do it because he genuinely doesnt want the other person to suffer? I think thats where the distinction between selfless and selfish becomes apparent. If bal decided, fuck this guy, but i don't want to be a jerk so i'll be nice, then yeah thats selfish, but if he decided, i don't want this guy to suffer, so i'll be nice, then its intriniscally selfless EVEN THOUGH he still gets teh satisfaction from not being a dick. The satisfaction was not a primary goal, rather it was the act of easing suffering frm the other individual.

Just like how in Ayn Rand's example of love, yeah u give ur lover a gift, because shes off value to you as a person, but thats not the primary REASON u gave her a gift. You gave her a gift to make her happy, the by product of that is your own happiness, but its not the goal thats immediately sought, therefore its intrinsically selfless.

However, i believe what ayn rand was dealing with was the purely logical side of human interaction, and although it seemed to have overlooked the more complex ranges of human choice and emotion, it still hit the nail on the head at the most basic level, so its still technically correct.

TL;DR everything that ayn Rand said, but instead of saying that all human interaction is basically selfish, i've said that some choices/ actions are intrinsically selfless

RNB

I do agree with the difference between the common way selfishness is explained and the way that is actually true. Rand means selfishness as concern for one's own interests and she also compares it to esteeming oneself or, self-esteem. This obviously necessitates that your own interests should be above everyone else's. Thinking rationally is a selfish act because it takes your own confidence in your mind to draw a conclusion. A true altruist would never think for himself and would only give into the thoughts of everyone else's which are based on feeling.

The reason empathy itself is not so much a selfish act. It is the act of doing something for empathy, which in turn raises one's self esteem. It doesn't do it as much as say getting a good test grade, but when one can identify with other beings around him he raises his self-esteem.

I will mention, however, that people like Nietzsche were considered very arrogant yet he was not able to experience empathy. However, he was a genius given his time period and no one else around him would agree with him. He later went insane.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Ero

post editted.

Then there in lies the "problem" in ayn rand's point of view. Her definition of selfishness is more complex and quite different from the definition used by the general populace. However i still believe what i've stated in my edited post applies.

That said though, its impossible for me to say that ayn rand is wrong, or tht i'm wrong, because its impossible to evaluate arguments that rely on completely different definitions of the words used, especially if the ideas deal with the very definitions themselves.

I can see the merit in Rand's logical deconstruction though, however to me atleast, its somewhat lacking.

Miburo

Couldn't I spend a dollar on a shitty cheeseburger at Mickey D's, and then later walk by some beggar and feel bad for wasting a dollar on some disgusting fast food? Though, neither giving some dude a dollar nor eating a cheeseburger is going to make me feel happy in the long run, so I guess it wouldn't really matter either way.


It is terminology. Most people don't see buying your friend a birthday present as selfish, despite the fact that you would be technically be doing it for some selfish reason. Yeah, you're being selfish in that scenario. But no one is going to 'tell you to stop being so selfish' or 'chastise you for your virtue' though.

Now if you say "Fuck you, Grandma. I'm not helping you pay for the hip replacement surgery you need despite the fact that you raised me and took care of me since birth, and I've got tons of money to spare, bitch" then people might call you selfish. Yes, you're being selfish just like in the scenario above. But you're also being a colossal dickhead too.

So you're being selfish in both scenarios. Yet only in one scenario would you actually be called "selfish." It's because people you the term "selfish" to say "you're an asshole." You won't be criticized for being selfish all by itself, ever. You're criticized for being a dickface. It's just semantics, really. When people say "selfish" they mean you're an asshole most of the time, that's all.

And if you don't want to be called an asshole then you selfishly be nice to people. Since one of the reasons you listed for being nice is to not be seen as an asshole. Easy stuff.

I don't get this "self sacrificial" stuff. Where did this come from?


Alright, how about fighting then? You should be able to fight, or else you could be pretty fucked if someone attacked you. And it isn't unheard of for people to be assaulted, right? There is a real chance that you could be attacked sometime in your life. So I'm sure you're able to discuss the finer arts of hand-to-hand combat with me then, correct? Or are you a coward who runs away from reality and shit?

Besides, it isn't like if I don't know enough about economics or politics to form educated, knowledgeable stance on them in some grand sense then I'm screwed. Assuming I know how shit works at the level where it directly effects me, like knowing the laws and how our currency works. Which I do.

ALSO, you implied that not taking a stance itself is what is cowardly and improper to myself. Nothing was said about not knowing vital information that could effect me. The example was economics. "What is your stance on economics?" I don't know enough about the entirety of economics to have a stance on economics as a whole. Let's pretend I did though, and I thought some other form of economics besides capitalism was awesome. Now I have a stance, so I shouldn't be a pussy, right? But...that stance isn't helpful, at all, since our economy plan is based around capitalism. Shiiiit. So wait. Originally it was 'Not having a stance=cowardly.' Now you're basically saying 'You should know about useful shit.' But we were talking about how not having a stance on something makes you a pussy who runs from reality. So where does that second statement even come from? Having a stance =/= knowing useful shit.



And this is getting kinda convoluted as fuck. I agree with the "Selfish=not bad because everyone does shit to make them happy" thing. No disagreement at all there. I still don't get what Ayn Rand's philosophy actually entails though. Could you break it down and present it in plain, non-jargon, speech? No human hero shit and the like. Just break it down in the simplest form, plz.

Ero

I think RnBs still working with extremes, he's going with Ayn Rand's definitions of selfless and selfish, that is selfless being an action entirely devoid of the self, and thus sacrificing ones "self" and self interests for the bettering of another/ others.

I also think that Ayn Rand's idea of "human beings wanting the rational" while logical, is a flaws argument against "self sacrifice" as it were. Because it works on the assumption that rationale is constant. Logic, the means by which one rationalizes, thats constant [to an extent] but how one rationalizes and what one considers to be "Rational" is generally subjective.

Therefore saying one wants whats best for himself because its rational, while in most cases is acceptable and logical, denies the possibility of those who do not see self satisfaction [if we're gonna use extremes here then "hedonism".] as rational.

Thats why i don't like these attempts at deconstructing and judging human thought and behaviour. It assumes too much from a spectrum with too many variables.


@mibs, hope that clears it up.

Jaxon

Yeah, but saying that Ero, is like saying, let's not even try to understand this and enforce a theory of what's going on, because it's such a vast topic we'll never get the right answer.

Maybe that's right, but you have to have these efforts at dissecting the human condition to even begin to comprehend the nature of the psyche. Sure, Rand's ideas may be flawed, hell, they may even be totally wrong, but at least by studying them you can gain another perspective. I think the issue here is whether RN would swear by them, and use them as complete guidelines for studying human behaviour for the rest of his life. And I don't think even he's that stupid =P

Ero

Tru dat.

/10char

balmung5000

SO BY IDENTIFYING MYSELF
IN THE OTHER PERSONS POSITION
AND GIVING THEM THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME
IS SELFISH?

BTW NOT TRYING TO ARGUEE JUST TO ARGUEE
TRYING TO FIGURE WHAT THE HELL YOUR TALKING ABOUT
WITH OUT READING WALLS OF TEXTS

cpas

RNB

I would like to point out that the idea that all social interactions are selfish is not an idea of Rand's. I, somehow in this debate, confused myself into believing it. If all of them were selfish, then there would be no selfless actions, therefore the ideas in Rand's book such as sex between two selfless people would not apply.

I think what I am trying to say is that seemingly selfless actions can be selfish.

I don't see the big deal in using selfish as "concern for one's own interests." When one uses the word selfish, one immediately thinks of the greedy guy taking all the money in the world. However, this is the wrong definition whether the general public accepts it or not. I don't think one should submit to the general public's definition. While it is better for communication, if the are wrong then they are wrong.

You will feel bad on the spot of the beggar, but you will not feel bad in the long wrong. Your second sentence is just useless and is basically just attacking the fact that you don't agree with my choice of the food. Seriously, there was no point to it.

How am I being a dickhead? Check your moral premises. First of all, your idea of "I got tons of money, but I am not giving it to you!" is exactly what the public sees in the eyes of business men. The fact is, the Grandma did not save her money for the hip surgery, therefore she is technically getting unearned money. Is that better for her in the long run? I mean, I am not saying the boy is in the right. I am saying that the Grandma had no right to ask for unearned money from the guy as if it were a duty.

If you think winning the general public's overall approval is what you think happiness is then go try. However, it isn't an esteem builder. One can't fall into the logical fallacy where everyone thinks 2+2=5 when truthfully it equals four. Secondly, if the term "selfish" means "you're and asshole" than I am pretty sure the public is denying the word of its true definition.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

RNB

I wouldn't say fighting. I would say one should know a form of self-defense, whether it be running, fighting with your body, or using a weapon.

This the bottom line. If you have your mind and you refuse to use it in areas that truly count, you are a coward. If you use your mind and fall into some logical fallacy that makes you accept the wrong form of economics or whatever, you are just wrong. However, a rational man should always be updating his views and checking if they are right or wrong. It is more rational to use your brain and have some sense in an area that matters, rather than abandon it at sight.

One is to pursue his happiness with his rational mind. His life must be his highest value in this case. He is to view reason, productiveness, and pride as his highest virtues. He is to live for the sake of himself, and never ask others to live for his. He is to never use physical force unless he is up against a true threat. Physical force is what the irrational brutes use, however if one uses it against you self-defense comes first. One lives in an objective reality that can be known by the mind. There are people these days who say that the mind cannot totally understand reality. What can you gain with that view? Of course, the only political system that works with selfishness and the individual is capitalism in its true laissez-faire state.

That is a basic form.

I am.

Rationality is not subjective. Tim likes apples, but picks a pear out of the basket and eats it instead of the apple. Is it a rational action? Of course not.

Ayn Rand defines the goal of life, the pursuit of one's own happiness, and then defines the way to get there, reason. If one knows that he must reason to get to happiness then he can decipher moral actions and immoral actions in everyone's life. All he needs to know is there reason for doing action A, then consider the alternatives if they are more beneficial to that person, and then consider if the reason for action A is actually a reason. one can do it, but one will probably have to converse with other people so that he can get that kind of information.

Also, I never said human beings want to be rational. I said that it is in there best self-interest to be rational.

Exactly. That is kind of like the post-modern, "Oh logic doesn't work. Try to prove logic without using logic. Just try it. See it didn't work. Now you have to live with you feelings because they are the true guide." Of course, they neglect the fact that A=A and we damn well know it does. Reason is the best tool we have and we know it works. Why not use it?

Of course not. I do swear by he ethics of Ayn Rand because they are the best ethics out there.

Alright, let's say this. You walk up to the cash register to give him that daily "pick-me-up" feel good "hello." However, have this guy come over, stick a gun to your head, and tell you that he will blow your brains out if you talk to the cashier. The selfless action is to say "hello." The selfish is to not say anything. Which would you put yourself under?

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Shrike

I am too late to join this conversation, which is a shame because it was really interesting. But one thing:

This was pretty stupid. You can't see the world in this light, it would be the same as seeing it in numbers and mathematically correct solved problems. Which is pretty much impossible. Or retarded.

It is true that if I give, I ask back. But friendship and such ties are not to be studied from that angle. You can say that I give something to a friend and ask something else back, which is true, but that isn't the reason why we are friends, at all. The whole concept of trade is ghastly in that view. When I am in a relationship, it can be perceived as trade, but that is not the reason why I am in a relationship. In other words, I did not enter that relationship because I thought of trade. That trade, while it is being executed, is subconscious and is not something anyone would normally think of. Because it is a retarded thing to do.

There are at least ten of my friends for whom I would gladly help without asking anything in return, and you can't say that I would subconsciously expect something in return because I wouldn't. The reason being is because I know they would do the same for me, and wouldn't ask anything back.

My friend asked me for a loan. I gave it to him, and he gave it back. Later, I needed a loan, and he gave it to me, but I couldn't give it all back, but I gave most of it with a promise I'll give it all back. He told me that he did not need the rest back, and told me to relax. I didn't give the rest back because he insisted that I don't. By your observation, I am the one who won that situation, because I got more then he did. Which is utter bullshit.

Playa

Shrike brings up a good point about how once you create relationships & friendships, everything is not about trade of sorts between each other or at least not consciously. However, one can say that the reason you would do things 'selflessly' for a close friend w/o wanting anything back is because you know he/she would reciprocate that, which in turn can be construed as selfish since there is still an equal exchange.

Also pretty interesting discussion, wish i'd seen it earlier

__________________

Shrike

No.
I got close with that person because I enjoy his/her company. You could say that I am doing it for my own good, but you would not be correct. It is in my nature to get close to people I like. That doesn't mean I am selfish. There is no trade there, not even subconscious one.

Getting close to someone=feeling better=being selfish - it doesn't work like that. Selfishness is something else.

Selfishness is this:
One friend of mine calls me and tells me he wants me to go out with him and a few friends that night. He also says that he has invited three girls, one whom he wanted for himself. So we arrive there, all together. The girl my friend wanted to date got close to me, and kissed me after a while. She was really hot, so I couldn't say no. That was selfish of me. Very. Luckily, it all went good after that.

A clear difference in actions, and definitions of selfishness.

The Madness

Someone want to tell me what the fuck is going on here, don't feel like reading all this crap.