I figured you would do that Anthem, and you are a pathetic jew.
If selfishness is a virtue and you believe ayn rand’s writings about it then obviously you agree with me that she’s an old jewish hag and she deserved to die, because selfishness is a virtue.
Squirm.
Well, which is it? Are we completely altruistic, or do we have a measure of both? I think you probably mean that we have a measure of both. Or do you mean that the distinction is meaningless? If you think the distinction is meaningless, I’d like to refer you back to my final comment about linguistic utility.
Your manner undermines any point you’re trying to make. You’re not worth having a philosophical discussion with. Reported again, I hope they IP ban you.
I’ll just come back with privoxy or a cloak browser. If I’m not worth having a philosophical discussion with, then ayn rand’s writings are all bullshit - which proves my point.
Free speech is a bitch ain’t it?
If I had said “Goebbels was a worthless piece of shit Nazi and he and his family deserved to die” I would have been applauded.
Nice try. But the title of this thread is “Selfishness and Altruism are the same thing”. Life is for life, and that includes all beings being for themelves which means they are for others even if they aren’t aware of it. Life wants to survive, it wants to procreate, so whatever you do is in respect to all of life itself.
Which is altruism.
Yes, but you fail to understand the whole idea of a ban, which is that the forum does not want you back. Why would you come back to a place where they don’t want you, don’t you have any friends?
Quite the separatist aren’t you?
SpartanInjun,
You know, I agree with you about the general idea that life is an interconnected whole. In a very real sense, all living things are organs in a single living body. That is the non-local perspective. But there is also the local perspective of the individual organisms. Now, from the non-local perspective of the unity being, a lot of our metaphors and notions break down, or just don’t make sense anymore. But they aren’t meant for, or used within that perspective. Our concepts are meant for the local perspective, and that’s where we get “selfishness” and “altruism”. From the non-local perspective of the unity being, it doesn’t make sense to speak about the self and the other, therefore it doesn’t make sense to speak of “selfishness” and “altruism”. I think this is what you are sensing. From that perspective, selfishness and altruism are in the sense the same thing, but it makes more sense to say that those concepts don’t make sense at that perspective. Therefore its not particularly meaningful to say that at that level, they are the same thing. On our ordinary local perspective, it does make sense to speak of selfishness and altruism. And at that level they are not the same. Here is why: the meaning of a word is its usage, and if we look to the way a word is used, we will come to understand it. The way the words are used are not the same, therefore their meanings are not the same. There is no avoiding that, and you cannot defeat it by appealing to the non-local perspective. If I open a door for myself - that’s selfish. If I open a door for you - that’s altruistic. Your argument seems to be that since you and I are part of an interconnect whole, anything I am doing for you I am really doing for myself and vice versa. But this is a misapplication of language, because the meaning and use of these words is in the local perspective where I am just myself, and you are just yourself.
I don’t believe in a local perspective. Your unnecessary explanation of how these words came about… came about… because they are the inventions of humans, who are still in a very primitive and attaching state of mind. We attribute these relative words to other beings in a ‘local’ sense as we are, just like the beings we attribute the word ‘selfish’ to, territorial. So in that light, we are selfish, but only because we are altruistically giving life the best chance it has.
I’m not talking about some ‘local perspective’. This is philosophy here, there are no right and wrongs. If you want to talk about local perspectives, go ahead. But don’t expect me to not have a reason for you to be that way.
I’m talking about the DOING of humans, rather than the PERCEPTION of humans. I could care less about perceptions. I’m only interested in understanding the big picture and no less.
…and quite the antagonist, aren’t you?
sure it follows… when your cup runneth over, lap it up as not to waste it
-Imp
The terms selfish and altruistic have no meaning outside the local perspective.
While it is valid to speak of the universal unity of life, this perspective has no employment for the two words being debated, or for any words at all, for that matter.
This is why religion is the most pervasive philosophy within the local perspective. It doesn’t make sense, but really nothing can.
This does not mean, however, that the words “selfish” and “altruistic” are any more the same thing than the words, say, “sausage” and “bicycle”.
Selfishness derives from the ego.
The selfish ego is not a shared element therefore it can never be altruistic.
Although the ego interacts with others ultimately it holds everything and everyone in regards to its own activities which is the opposite of altruism.
Habitualized custom from the moral ideal of the “just” and “good” samaritan.
If one revolves around it long enough with the mind acting like a sponge such a habitualization becomes “real” like eating or physical stimulation.
Reality becomes much more interesting when one sheds customary habitualization regarding such things as the fictitious product of someone elses crude interests. 
Are you serious?
Here comes the religion everybody. Please prepare for the religious choir so that we may bow our heads down in hysterical hope of redemption. 
’
sure it follows… lap it up as not to waste it, when your cup runneth over
-Imp
How does a thing ‘follow’ itself?
In a circle.
In a circle.
-Smears
The thing following itself is in the northern hemisphear so is the circle turning clock wise?
I think you confounded the conversational idiom ‘follows’. What I was asking was: how is ab the same as ba? In mathematics we could say the commutative law (ab=ba, a+b=b+a), but this isn’t mathematics, it’s words, thoughts.
’