 |
| |
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
I don't doubt that, but does that make them altruistic? One must ask the question "why do they share" and my answer is self-interest (egoism). |
That's just a definition game. How do you define egoism?
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
If you accept that the human brain, as a computer, operates on certain logical principles, then is it possible for it *not* to act in its own interest, or for its own whim? |
Logical thinking is hard. Only the cerebral cortex (I think that's what it is called) is capable of it, and you need to learn how to think logically. When people act, particularly when doing so impulsively, the actions come from a more primitive part. When you dodge an incoming object, you don't think, "I better avoid this thing or I may get hurt" - you just do.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
As for us as subjectively conscious individuals, naturally we think of ourselves as altruistic, benevolent people, but that does not transfer categorically to a situation where humans as numbers matters, or a political equation were determinations of human nature are of the utmost importance. |
You're claiming that greed is the dominant motive, but that's just as valid (or invalid) as my counterpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Obvious suggestion would be instint (certain anecdotal cases I remember hearing about suggest instinct)... so the instinct to help a stranger, or shall we say an instinct to altruism. But is that not to the satisfaction and gratification of those instincts that one performs those actions? We might do something because of the endorphine rush that feels good, but that's shaky ground for the foundation of this argument, so I can ask the question above, is it possible for us "not" to act on a fundamentally egoistic level? |
You certainly agree that survival is the fundamental instinct, thus attempting to save another person at great risk to oneself cannot be egoistical. Afterall, it's likely that one would not be there. Furthermore, is getting some kind of high a good return on getting yourself killed? Are you stoned? 
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Naturally certain things have an altruistic appearance, even to us, but appearences can be deceptive, I am asking the question of the premise of subjective motivation, including the motivation of the "best of intentions". |
There's a recent case that took place duing the South Asia tsumani disaster. A man risked his life saving a woman - who was later rescued - but he was found dead later. Where's the egoistic motivation in that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
That's just a definition game. How do you define egoism?
|
I believe I did.
quote:
Logical thinking is hard. Only the cerebral cortex (I think that's what it is called) is capable of it, and you need to learn how to think logically. When people act, particularly when doing so impulsively, the actions come from a more primitive part. When you dodge an incoming object, you don't think, "I better avoid this thing or I may get hurt" - you just do.
|
As I said earlier, you need to get away from this notion of conscious thought. I am dealing with a more basic side, of course consciously we dress things up and dilude ourselves... love, altruism and the rest of it but to consistently bring it into your argument is to fudge the question.
quote:
You certainly agree that survival is the fundamental instinct, thus attempting to save another person at great risk to oneself cannot be egoistical. Afterall, it's likely that one would not be there. Furthermore, is getting some kind of high a good return on getting yourself killed?
|
Further to your confusion of conscious and subconscious is your confusion of individual instincts and evolutionary instincts. To what end are they respectively performed? Does it make sense for an individual to have a sex drive except in the context of evolutionary instinct? Consider this piece: http://salmonriver.com/commentary/c...inourgenes.html and what I said earlier about us having evolved for social behaviour, but it is still in our self-interest as a species, even though (again as I said earlier) there may not be any discernable material gain to the subject (rushing into the burning car to save a stranger). Draw the line between the individuals behaviour and that to propagate the species. Can't be done imo.
I do not agree that survival is a fundamental instinct, I agree that egoism is the fundamental "instinct", or at least a consequential function of the fact that our brains obey the laws of physics, upon which instincts are premised relative to the appropriate context, i.e. survival can be put on the shelf WRT the burning car.
quote:
There's a recent case that took place duing the South Asia tsumani disaster. A man risked his life saving a woman - who was later rescued - but he was found dead later. Where's the egoistic motivation in that?
|
Logical behaviour for the propagation of the species. Needless to say the human factor, and that our nurture can sometimes distort our psychological nature means that such actions are performed arbitrarily... i.e. it's conceivable that someone could give his life to save a stranger who is a post-menopausal woman (IOW someone of limited evolutionary value). The same logic applies throughout.
Egoism is here simply the premise for all of our actions because we can only perceive through a given set of senses that feed into our brains, it is our minds that think and our individual subconscious' that process information and act instinctively, so there is something always rooted in us whenever we take what may appear as the most selfless action. How can that ever *not* be the case in human action? Everything we do therefore is simply a manifestation of that fundamental egoism. Look at the etymology and dictionary definition of the word...
(From Websters)
Main Entry: ego·ism
Pronunciation: 'E-g&-"wi-z&m also 'e-
Function: noun
1 a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions
2 : excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance -- compare EGOTISM 2
Ego of course coming from the latin for "I", and it is that notion which is key. Our perception is egocentric and "other people", either in the rationalist or the empiricalist sense, are still "knowledge" to us, in other words simply a function in our brains. They exist -> They exist to I.
(I should draw the distinction between this as a descriptive notion and an interpretation of my argument of prescriptive in the ethical sense, which is obviously not the case)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
Whaleboy, then she is a slave.
Last edited by Ned on 24-01-2005 at 00:25
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aneeshm
In capitalism , there is no forcing of anything involved . In fact , the use of force is illegal in a capitalist society ( except in cases like self-defence , et cetera ) . If a bunch of commies choose to go and form a self-sufficient commune , no-one will stop them . You are free to do anything you want as long as all relationships ( of all natures ) do not involve the use of force . |
#1, would you learn to use punctuation properly? In English, there are no spaces before punctuation, only after (except with leading quotation marks and brackets). It's annoying.
#2, don't give me any BS definitions of capitalism invented by libertarians 200 years after capitalism became the dominant economic system on the planet.
#3, the history of capitalism is flooded with examples of the use of force to seize the property of others, theft which is then legitimated: the enclosures, the theft of America, the theft of Black bodies, etc. The worst example, of course, is Nazi Germany, where whole countries were seized for the benefit of Germany's capitalists, and where they used the state to provide millions of worker-slaves. German capitalism made a massive profit off of the Nazis.
In fact, without the use of force to seize the property of others, capitalism would never have gotten off the ground. Today libertarians claim it would be too hard to try and return the stolen property to the decendents of its owners, so the decendents of the theives should keep it. Hypocracy at its worst.
#4, historically, outside of the U.S. and Israel, whenever someone tried to start a commune in a capitalist country, the capitalists would use the state to crush it.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Let me see, potato famine Ireland and 1980s India were capitalist systems? |
Both Ireland and India were and are capitalist countries. The famines occured within capitalists systems. In fact, in Ireland, even during the worst of the famine, the Irish landlords were exporting food to England for sale. India, while it had massive state interference, was a capitalist economy, where the majority of production in that country was made to be sold, not used by its makers. That is the hallmark of capitalism, and what seperates it from all other economic systems.
Of course, with the libertarian BS definitions of socialism and capitalism, which no one other than members of your deluded sect accept, you'll simply disagree.
edit: spelling fixes
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 23-01-2005 at 22:04
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2005 06:28
And that!
Yup, typical DD post. Nothing of substance, sniping at minor flaws and declaring his strawman slain.
|