1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat is it that motivates you to attempt to create an insult with each post you make? Are you under the impression that I am attempting to belittle you in some way?
Actually I was wondering the same about you. Based on your world view, seems like that of a college kid, yet reading between the lines of your responses, it wouldn't surprise me if you're older chronologically.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatJust telling it like it is. All things considered, can't say as I'm surprised that you see an 'insult' in every post. You've been more than a little 'defensive' pretty much all along.
What is it that motivates you to attempt to create an insult with each post you make? Are you under the impression that I am attempting to belittle you in some way?
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell golly, I'd be really interested to see what you're like when you're actually trying to insult somebody.
Just telling it like it is. All things considered, can't say as I'm surprised that you see an 'insult' in every post. You've been more than a little 'defensive' pretty much all along.
You're mid-20s, right?
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSorry I have not been around for a while to respond. I appreciate your clarifications on your view. I would still disagree, though, for reasons cited below.
I've been thinking on this, and reading a little too, and I think I can express myself a little more clearly today.
I wasn't directly referencing the fact that all our motivations originate from ourself - the observation you quite properly characterised as trivial. Neither was I referring directly to the theory of psychological egoism as generally e to come up with a concrete exception) human motivation is ultimately self-centred.
Even an apparent altruistic action can be seen as self-centred at some level. One often discussed is the soldier throwing himself on a grenade to protect his comrades; yes, clearly not self-interested, right? Well, maybe. I would argue that perhaps the motivation is simply that in the heat of the moment, one might easily value the continued existence of one's comrades more highly than that of oneself. In fact I can think of a number of people for whom I would happily accept my termination in favour of theirs. I don't think this is altruism - I think this motivation is entirely self-centred.
The only way in which I understand the notion of 'value' is that it is directly tied to practical reasons and reason-giving awareness. So, I totally agree that motivations tie naturally into what one values. So, I totally agree that what you outline is a plausible case where one is catering to his own values. However, that's virtually always the case, excepting instances where we would be talking about failures of practical rationality (e.g., cases of irrationality). If you claim that the fact that one's motivations reflect or cater to his own values means, ipso facto, that his motivations are 'self-centred', then what you have is merely an idiosyncratic usage of the term, which will not align with the way others typically mean the term when they are talking about selfish behavior. For instance, you'll have to admit that your claim that all human motivations are 'self-centred' does not mean to imply psychological egoism, which will just sound odd to anyone who knows the definition of psychological egoism (hence the majority of confusion surrounding this thread). At any rate, I doubt that even this claim of yours (that all motivations are 'self-centred' in the sense you mean the term) is true. I think, for example, there's no reason to think that irrational motivations will qualify in this sense as 'self-centred'.
Again, as the terms self-centered, or self-interested, or selfish are typically intended in this context, the question of whether or not a motivation qualifies as such does not hinge on whether or not the motivation aligns with the agent's values (as I mentioned, this value-motivation alignment will basically always hold if the agent is exercising practical rationality); it hinges solely on the nature of the object of the motivation and whether or not the object of the motivation deals materially with the agent's own welfare. So, in the example you cite, as to the question of whether or not the motivation was self-centered, I would say it depends entirely on the actual object of the motivation. If the motivation was something dealing materially with furthering the agent's own welfare (hard to even conceive of such examples in this case, but perhaps one could be that the agent was motivated to smother the grenade just because he wanted his comrades to praise and immortalize his name even in death and erect statues unto his memory, or some such), then it was selfish. If not (which is overwhelmingly easier to conceive of in this case, such as that the object of the motivation was prosocial and other-regarding with respect to the welfares of his comrades), then it was not selfish. In either case, the agent's motivation presumably caters to some value he holds; that fact per se is irrelevant. What is relevant, though, is that in one case what he values is self-regarding and gives rise to selfish motivation; in the other case, what he values is other-regarding and gives rise to non-selfish motivation.
As I mentioned before, based on my studies, I think psychological egoism is soundly refuted on the basis of the empirical evidence. (And I think it is easy to see why it had virtually no chance of ever being selected for in organisms such as us, especially when one considers that the unit of natural selection is decidedly not the individual but rather the replicator, the gene). As you have clarified it, you are not arguing for psychological egoism, but rather for the claim that all motivations are 'self-centred' in the sense that you intend the term (e.g., in the sense that one's movitations cater to one's values). But, as I mentioned, I would also find even this claim implausible, since I think there are irrational motivations that would fail to qualify.
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatFrom what I can tell, things started going sideways when I suggested that you didn't understand what the authors of the quoted material were saying (which was made pretty evident given your responses).
Well golly, I'd be really interested to see what you're like when you're actually trying to insult somebody.
You're mid-20s, right?
You responded with the following:
May I respectfully suggest that instead of posting other people's arguments and then patronisingly insisting that I haven't understood them, you try to rephrase them in simple terms that an idiot such as myself might grasp even allowing for my puny, ill-exercised and no doubt diminutive mind?
I said nothing about you being an 'idiot' or your having a 'puny, ill-exercised and no doubt diminutive mind' or anything of the sort. How was this not a ridiculously defensive response? You've seemed a bit off the beam since. Instead of just accepting the above, you've continued to try to act like I'm the one with 'issues' rather than yourself. While it's fascinating in a way, you really should try to get a grip.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, you're absolutely right, I wasn't intending to imply psychological egoism - in fact it I wasn't even aware of the theory prior to this thread. When I read the detail of the theory, I thought the understanding of 'self-interest' and 'selfishness' used seemed broadly ok, but that that of 'self-centred' fell a long way short of my understanding of the phrase. I'm both interested and a little surprised to find out that the generally understood meaning is as blunt as it appears to be. Of course I accept what you are saying about my use of the phrase being idiosyncratic - although it still seems to me that if my actions are dictated by my values, if I'm putting my desires ahead of those of other people, then there is an element of selfishness, even in what might by others be considered largely altruistic behaviour.
Sorry I have not been around for a while to respond. I appreciate your clarifications on your view. I would still disagree, though, for reasons cited below.
[quote]Even an apparent altruistic action can be seen as self-centred at some level. One often discussed is the soldier throwing himself on a grenade to protect his comrades; yes, clearly not sel ...[text shortened]... nce I think there are irrational motivations that would fail to qualify.
As to irrational motivations, I've been thinking about those. I'm not entirely sure I follow, or agree with this exception. Suppose I am irrationally motivated to follow a mode of behaviour which is detrimental to myself but advantageous to others; I'm still following my own desires here above those of the advantaged 'recipient'. Certainly irrational motivations which are not consciously considered would fail to qualify, but as discussed with twitehead, all sub-consciously motivated actions are disqualified anyway. Were you thinking of that kind of irrational motivation?
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou'd already been posting in a pompous and patronising manner (please note, this is not intended as insult, it is simply descriptive) prior to that exchange, leading to the response you quote. Neither do I consider that said response was 'ridiculously' defensive given your attitude prior thereto.
From what I can tell, things started going sideways when I suggested that you didn't understand what the authors of the quoted material were saying (which was made pretty evident given your responses).
You responded with the following:
[quote]May I respectfully suggest that instead of posting other people's arguments and then patronisingly insisting han yourself. While it's fascinating in a way, you really should try to get a grip.
It is interesting to note that you have still not actually attempted to take part in any discussion of the topic at hand, and that you are still attempting to incorporate insult in every post.
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYeah, ToO's a strange fish. I like him, but he really pisses me off at the same time.
You'd already been posting in a pompous and patronising manner (please note, this is not intended as insult, it is simply descriptive) prior to that exchange, leading to the response you quote. Neither do I consider that said response was 'ridiculously' defensive given your attitude prior thereto.
It is interesting to note that you have still not ...[text shortened]... of the topic at hand, and that you are still attempting to incorporate insult in every post.
Isn't it strange you get these weird paradoxes, like when 6k earth creationists have chess ratings of 2000+, or when well read Christians indulge in the very things they warn against,etc. 🙂
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI dont know what LJ was saying but there is only so much rational behaviour one can cope with.
No, you're absolutely right, I wasn't intending to imply psychological egoism - in fact it I wasn't even aware of the theory prior to this thread. When I read the detail of the theory, I thought the understanding of 'self-interest' and 'selfishness' used seemed broadly ok, but that that of 'self-centred' fell a long way short of my understanding of t ...[text shortened]... re disqualified anyway. Were you thinking of that kind of irrational motivation?
It (total left brain ,logical,3-d thinking),leads to insanity. Without addressing the inert 'life questions' and coming up with some form of satisfactory answer, life can be pretty dull.
It would make sense to make use of left and right brain equally, or where necessary. It would make intuitive sense anyway.
To me this means making educated guesses. A lot of these decisions can be internal, it depnds on the individual. Although I'm definately more of an extravert , in my solitude I spend many quiet hours reflecting on happenings during the day. (It is a hindu custom after all).
I've had my fair share of contemplating altruism. I think true altruism is when you just get in that zone of walking through life and just doing the right thing by everyone you come across. It is only hours later that you reflect on your behaviour and realize that the motivation was not selfish but purely compassionate
Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No, you're absolutely right, I wasn't intending to imply psychological egoism - in fact it I wasn't even aware of the theory prior to this thread. When I read the detail of the theory, I thought the understanding of 'self-interest' and 'selfishness' used seemed broadly ok, but that that of 'self-centred' fell a long way short of my understanding of t ...[text shortened]... re disqualified anyway. Were you thinking of that kind of irrational motivation?
Were you thinking of that kind of irrational motivation?
I was thinking of examples of irrational behavior such as compulsive or addictive behaviors. For some, addiction is paradigmatic of irrationality (although others would claim that it is typically pre-rational). Addiction is often marked by toxic motivators that fail to accord, even at times knowingly to the subject upon introspection, with the subject's actual value set. So my example would be roughly something like an addict who is motivated to addictive behavior even though she knows upon introspection that this does not accord with her values, or some such. I think we could find such examples such as this where the motivations fail to be 'self-centred' in the sense you intend.
I generally agree with your point that motivations accord with the subject's values (though, again, I doubt this always holds, pace examples like the one above). But, basically, I do not agree that owing to this fact we should call motivations self-centred. I think, at bottom, whether or not we should call a motivation self-centred depends on nothing more than the nature/content of the actual object of the motivation (whether or not and to what extent it deals materially with the suject's own welfare).
Originally posted by karoly aczelI dont know what LJ was saying
I dont know what LJ was saying but there is only so much rational behaviour one can cope with.
It (total left brain ,logical,3-d thinking),leads to insanity. Without addressing the inert 'life questions' and coming up with some form of satisfactory answer, life can be pretty dull.
It would make sense to make use of left and right brain equally, or wh ...[text shortened]... t on your behaviour and realize that the motivation was not selfish but purely compassionate
That's okay. LJ usually doesn't know what LJ is saying either.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou may not consider it ridiculously defensive, but I haven't known very many adults who would have responded in that manner - excepting a small number lacking emotional maturity. One could only wonder what your responses would have been if I had added the following disclaimer to my responses: "(please note, this is not intended as insult, it is simply descriptive)". You can remain in denial, but what does that really accomplish? Why can't you simply accept that you do not understand the point being made by the authors?
You'd already been posting in a pompous and patronising manner (please note, this is not intended as insult, it is simply descriptive) prior to that exchange, leading to the response you quote. Neither do I consider that said response was 'ridiculously' defensive given your attitude prior thereto.
It is interesting to note that you have still not ...[text shortened]... of the topic at hand, and that you are still attempting to incorporate insult in every post.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAre you ever going to stop these attempts at insult? Honestly, it doesn't matter how hard you try, I'm not going to get into a slanging match with you.
You may not consider it ridiculously defensive, but I haven't known very many adults who would have responded in that manner - excepting a small number lacking emotional maturity. One could only wonder what your responses would have been if I had added the following disclaimer to my responses: "(please note, this is not intended as insult, it is simply d ...[text shortened]... Why can't you simply accept that you do not understand the point being made by the authors?
What is it that you imagine I don't understand? Apart from your unreasoned hostility, that is?
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes, that's true - compulsive and addictive behaviours certainly seem able to escape the characterisation.Were you thinking of that kind of irrational motivation?
I was thinking of examples of irrational behavior such as compulsive or addictive behaviors. For some, addiction is paradigmatic of irrationality (although others would claim that it is typically pre-rational). Addiction is often marked by toxic motivators that fail to accord, ev ...[text shortened]... tion (whether or not and to what extent it deals materially with the suject's own welfare).
How about actions which are overtly altruistic but for which the motivations are nakedly selfish? Would you say that these are not self-centred?
Originally posted by karoly aczelI also spend a fair bit of time reconsidering decisions I have made and actions I have taken. These days I'm usually fairly satisfied that I've done the right thing, but as I said before, my whole rationale for doing the right thing is, to my mind at least, based in self-interest. Guess I'm just a wrong 'un eh?
I dont know what LJ was saying but there is only so much rational behaviour one can cope with.
It (total left brain ,logical,3-d thinking),leads to insanity. Without addressing the inert 'life questions' and coming up with some form of satisfactory answer, life can be pretty dull.
It would make sense to make use of left and right brain equally, or wh ...[text shortened]... t on your behaviour and realize that the motivation was not selfish but purely compassionate