RoR: Forum

If the goal is fighting altruism among layman, then there are a few tacks to take. First, you still have to explain to people the explicit definition of the term, even if they are not familiar with it or don't know the formal definition or think that way. Not to do so is like trying to fight against m*slim fundamentalism without identifying it - it leaves the field tilted in favor of the enemy. Second, you have to explain that helping people, and charitable acts are not at all evil unless they involve duty and sacrifice as well as validating those who are not motivated by humanitarian ideas. Just as the atheist is immediately accused of satanism, the egoist has to take care to explain that everyone's ego is of value and that the egoist is not an egotist.

Ted Keer

Post 21

Sunday, September 2, 2007 - 8:31pm

A good example is a recent Time article I just saw about "volunteerism" which included, of course, compulsory versions too, a nice contradiction in terms. I am curious if anyone would actually do an economic analysis and see if much of this is a waste of time, or is it valuable, or - maybe - some of both. Time was incredibly left wing everywhere; I was surprised how low it has sunk.

Post 22

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 8:03am

NEWSPEAK

The problem with words like "altruism" and "selfishness" - as with many, many other words - is that they do not mean anymore what they always meant. To be more precisely: the problem nowadays is that there is NO FIXED PRINCIPLE anymore. This phenomenon was called "newspeak" in the book "1984".

When you start explaining and insisting on the definition of words you will get a hearing only as far as the necessary conclusions do NOT endanger the lives and social setting of the person you are speaking to. When you explain your principles, THEY are thinking about how their "peer group" will respond to it.

Besides that most people LIKE to keep it vague, because that gives them the desired room to just make a confession to what they think is most profitable and least dangerous at that very moment. At the next audience they might well espouse a totally contradicting opinion.

So this means that your STARTING POINT must be to make your hearers see and understand that they NEED a clear definition of words and fixed principles for the pursuit of their own happiness. Not an easy job!

Post 23

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 8:47am

Altruism is much more clearly understood when its literal is given instead - 'otherism'....

Post 24

Monday, September 17, 2007 - 1:14am

     Any usefulness in 'defining' any term one intends to be their subject-of-discussion in linguistic/verbal communication requires that one have reason to accept the presumption re commonality-of-meaning amongst the terms used in one's stated-for-the-context of the discussion 'definition', and is understandable by the listeners/discussers.
    Otherwise, might's'well be wasting one's breath talking Martian. Same goes for the listeners/participants.
    Seems like 'self' and 'altruism' are terms that fall into my last statement...whoever uses ('defining' their use or not) the terms.

    You were saying, about 'otherism', Robert...?

LLAP
J:D

Post 25

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 7:06pm

John started off ...

... subject-of-discussion in linguistic/verbal communication requires that one have reason to accept the presumption re commonality-of-meaning amongst the terms used in one's stated-for-the-context of the discussion 'definition', and is understandable by the listeners/discussers.

John concluded ...

Otherwise, might's'well be wasting one's breath talking Martian.

Who's talking Martian?

;-))

Ed
[understands John-speak]

Post 26

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 4:23am

Ed:

Hmmm...maybe I should have said "...talking John-Speak." --- Well, you get the idea.

LLAP
J:D

Post 27

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 8:36pm