Something has occured to me, in the vein of what I’ve been writing about on the differences between the philosopher and the everyman. Let me give an example of the phenomenon before I generalize it.
It is said by some that everything man does is ultimately out of selfishness.
The vulgar see this, and find it unbelievable immediately- they recall times that they did things they didn’t want to, out of obligation or, duty, love, or somesuch. To them, there is altruism everywhere.
The philosopher says that no, if you do something out of a sense of duty, then you do it because answering that duty makes you feel good. The same with love or obligation.
The vulgar responds, perhaps, that they do not feel this satisfaction the philosopher is talking about.
The philosopher says, that it must be there, for if they didn’t want to do it, they wouldn’t have.
And here we have the equivocation. The philosopher has here used ‘want’ to mean ‘will’, while the vulgar is still understanding it to mean “A desire for pleasure or satisfaction”.
The problem is, if the philosopher means only “People do what they will,” then he’s simply speaking a tautology. The only reason why this argument for selfishness bears any weight, is that because when we hear it, in the back of our minds we are hearing the vulgar definition of ‘want’, where the philosopher is using his other definition to defend his position.
Argue with me about altruism if you must, but my real question is, how common is this mistake? That the philosopher seems to be saying something profound and important, only because we fail to recognize the exotic way they are using common words?